ÖGUT-NEWS 3/2004 ÖGUT-NEWS 1/2007 · 2007-09-25 · Participation Manual ÖGUT-NEWS 1/2007 Shaping the future together. Authors ... particular project. Or you would like to involve

AUSTRIAN SOCIETY FORENVIRONMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

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

In collaboration with:

The Public Participation

Manual

Shaping the future together

ÖG

UT-

NE

WS

1/2

007

Authors

Kerstin Arbter Büro ArbterMartina Handler ÖGUTElisabeth Purker ÖGUTGeorg Tappeiner Austrian Institute for Applied EcologyRita Trattnigg Lebensministerium

Austrian Society forEnvironment and Technology

Vienna, March 2007

The Public ParticipationManualShaping the future together

The Public Participation Manual

3

Imprint:

ÖGUT-News 01/2007Publisher and owner of medium:Austrian Society for Environment andTechnology (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 ZieherLayout: A BISS Z PRODUCTIONS, 1090 Vienna Cartoons: Klaus Pitter, A-1170 Vienna English translation: Andrew KilpatrickPrinted by: just-print-it, A-4020 LinzCopyright: Federal Ministry for Agricultureand Forestry, the Environment and WaterSupply and Austrian Society for Environmentand Technology (ÖGUT)

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

Co

nten

ts


5

Intr

odu

ctio

n

You may be familiar with one ormore of the following situations:

■ As a citizen you have been invit-ed to take part in a process ofparticipation (➔Glossary). Ormaybe you wonder how you canseize the initiative and make yourideas known in projects.

■ Ordinary citizens approach you asa politician with their wish tocontribute ideas of their own to aparticular project. Or you wouldlike to involve people in yourcommunity in a developmentprocess.

■ As a representative of theadministration you are facedwith the wish – both from politi-cians and from ordinary citizens –to involve those interested indeveloping and/or implementing aproject.

■ As an entrepreneur you want toexpand your activities. You aim toimplement your project with thewidest acceptance possible, andtherefore to start a dialogue withstakeholders (➔Glossary).

■ As the representative of acommon-interest group youaim to make the interests of thepeople you represent as wellknown as possible in decisionprocesses.

When a variety of stakeholders(➔Glossary) – ordinary citizens,lobbyists, entrepreneurs, politicians,administrators – participate in aplanning process, the number of ideasand the amount of knowledge onhand increase dramatically. The morepeople are involved, the moreperspectives and suggestions arepresented and discussed. Compre-hensive solutions that take a widerange of interests into account canbe developed in this way. Involvingthe general public in reaching adecision can improve both the qualityof the decisions reached and theiracceptance.

This manual shows how you can takean active part in shaping your sur-roundings and in reaching decisionson issues important to society.

You will learn ■ what involving the general public

means, ■ how processes of participation

can proceed, ■ what framework and what criteria

of quality are essential for success and you will get to know the varietyof ways in which the public can par-ticipate, on the basis of selected casehistories.

Participating means helping to shape the future

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


6

Bas

ics

Ordinary citizens, entrepreneurs andlobbyists want to be informed in detailbefore (political) decisions that affectthem are taken. Or they want a say indevelopments, an active part in currentprojects and quite possibly directinvolvement in decisions. Participationcomprises all this.

Participation is a basic principle ofdemocracy. Voting in elections/refer-enda, and supporting petitions, areestablished forms of participation.Today opportunities of taking part inplanning and development processes inthe public sphere as an ordinary citizen

or as a lobbyist are coming to be seenmore and more as a desirable supple-ment to these established forms, to becalled for and promoted.

Where individuals or citizens’ initia-tives participate in a planning process,so as to make their interests as privatepersons or as a group of private per-sons known, we call this “citizenparticipation”. The notion of“public participation” refers toinvolving various groups of stake-holders in a process of participation –individuals or citizens’ initiatives just asmuch as representatives of lobbiessuch as environment organizations,youth clubs or professional associa-tions that make the concerns of thegroup they represent known. Lobbyistsand common-interest groups areknown as “the organized public”. Asfar as possible any process ofparticipation should be open to allstakeholders and everyone interested,i.e. to a wide public. In some cases,though, that is not feasible, becausethe resulting group would be too largeto function effectively. Then it is up to“the organized public” to represent allstakeholders’ interests.

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.

citizenscitizens’initiativesinitiativesindividualsindividualscitizens’

initiativesindividuals

lobbieslobbiescommon-interest groupscommon-interest groups

lobbiescommon-interest groups

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

citizen participation

organized public


7

Bas

ics

Fields of applicationfor participation

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

➔ section on case historiesp. 22 ff.

Transport and mobility • Mobile communities – multi-com-

munity mobility initiative in theRhine valley (➔p. 40)

• Open planning process for thesecond tunnel on the A10(Tauern) motorway (➔p. 43)

Waste management• Strategic environmental assess-

ment of the Vienna waste manage-ment plan (➔p. 44)

• Mediation process for wasteincineration project at the Leubecement plant in St. Leonhard

Water management• Participative development of an

overall concept for the Möll valley(➔p. 26)

• “Watermark” – project to returnthe Große Mühl to its natural state

Energy supply • Citizens’ meetings and regular

discussions about the Oberzeiringwind power project

• Participative development of anenergy concept in Güssing

Tourism/leisure • Developing a tourism strategy with

the people of Hinterstoder • Mediation process for a golf-

course project in Telfs

Participation withincompanies/organizations

• “Sustainable administration” –inhouse development process inthe district administration in Kirch-dorf an der Krems (➔p. 38)

• Mobility management in Austriancompanies (involving the work-force) to promote environmentallyacceptable means of transport

Community work • Developing a community concept

for integrating migrants in Krems(➔p. 46)

• Resolving a conflict betweenskaters and residents at the hous-ing estate “Am Schöpfwerk” inVienna (➔p. 23)

Regional development• Regional cluster in Hartberg –

developing a regional economy(➔p. 36)

• Regional Agenda 21 in theMühlviertler Alm

Political/social development • Juveniles’ declaration on sustain-

able development for the regionaround Lake Constance (➔p. 32)

• Delphi process to obtain experts’views on the future developmentof technology in Austria

• Neo-socratic dialogue on ethicalissues of transplanting organs fromanimals to human beings

Conservation• Mediation process on using a

Natura 2000 zone in the Montafon(➔p. 24)

• Participatory process to conservebiodiversity in woodland inMödling

• Ozone consensus conferencebetween the provinces of Vienna,Lower Austria and Burgenland

Design and use of openspaces, parks etc.

• Workshop for girls on shaping thefuture in connection with arrangingthe Odeonpark in Vienna Leopold-stadt

• Citizen jury on redesigning theNeutorgasse in Graz (➔p. 30)

Renovating housing andimproving residentialsurroundings

• “GOAL – Gesund ohne Auto undLärm” (= healthy without cars andnoise) – improving the surround-ings of three residential areas inGraz (➔p. 28)

• Focus group on renovating housingas part of the program “House ofthe future”

Community development • Local Agenda 21 in Vienna Alser-

grund – traffic calming in Himmel-pfortgrund (➔p. 42)

• Local action plan for employmentand education – Munderfing(➔p. 34)

➔ See also www.partizipation.at


8

Bas

ics

■ at the highest level, i.e. policy(➔Glossary) – where strategies,general approaches and overallconcepts are developed – andlegislation (acts, statutes anddecrees),

■ in planning activities andprogram development,

■ in concrete projects.

Putting public participation to work

Processes of participation can take effect at many different levels:

Policies and legislationDefine goals and general direction of development,

usually expressed in an abstract waye.g. Province of Vienna statute on waste management

Plans and programsBundle of highly differentiated measures to reach a given goal,

expressed in a more concrete waye.g. Vienna waste management plan

ProjectsIndividual measures planned

or described in detaile.g. third waste incineration plant in Vienna

No misunderstandings, please:mediation is quite different from mediTation

Is the mediation processtaking place here?


9

Bas

ics

How far the interests of ordinarycitizens and/or lobbyists and com-mon-interest groups can be takeninto account largely depends on thetype of process involved (formal orinformal ➔p. 10) and on the methodselected. Independently of this,though, the willingness of decision-makers in politics, the administrationand business to accomodate ordinarycitizens’ ideas in planning and takingdecisions is crucial.

Depending on the framework

■ stakeholders and other interestedparties are informed about theproject and its effects, e.g. at apublic meeting or where plans aremade available for inspection. Theaim of involving the publicinformatively is to make plansor decisions known and compre-hensible to a wide public – whichin this case has little opportunityof influencing the decision in ques-tion.

■ ordinary citizens andlobbyists/representatives of com-mon-interest groups can commenton official proposals and contri-bute ideas and suggestions, e.g. inconnection with making a zoningplan. The aim of consultativepublic participation is to obtainstakeholders’ reactions to propos-als, plans or decisions, so thatthese can be taken into account atthe final decision stage.

■ it is also possible for stakeholdersand other interested parties tohave a say in developing andimplementing the project in ques-tion, as in the case of a RoundTable or of a mediation process(= decision-influencing). How much say those concernedactually have varies, from jointlydeveloping suggestions to thecitizens participating exercisingextensive powers of decision.

Stages of public participation

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

InformationNotice-board,mailing,public meeting to inform,opportunity to inspect official documents etc.

ConsultationPublic meeting with discussion,opinion survey,citizen panel,(requests for) comments etc.

Decision-influencingStudy group,Round Table,Citizen jury,environmental mediation etc.

Formal processes are mandatory;legal regulations lay down who takespart, how far rights of participationextend, how the process is structuredand what is done with the findings.The most extensive rights in a formalprocess go with party status (➔Glos-sary). As a party to the process youhave wide-ranging powers: you areentitled to ■ obtain all the information available

(inspect the files), ■ make a statement, which must be

discussed, ■ file a petition, e.g. requesting an

additional expert’s report, ■ raise objections to decisions or

contest these at a higher adminis-trative level.

Formal processes include approvalprocedures such as environmentalimpact assessment or project assess-ment as regards nature conservationfor plants or hydraulic engineeringprojects, and planning procedures forzoning plans or regional programs.A formal process results in an adminis-trative decision (e.g. by a civil servant)and/or a political decision (e.g. by alocal council).

Informal participation processesare not rigidly regulated and can bestructured in various ways, dependingon the circumstances. They are entire-ly voluntary; the central principle istackling an assignment together. Theaim can be to gather information, toexchange ideas or to find a solutiontogether – and in some cases to imple-ment it together, too. Who takes part,how the assignment is tackled andwhat rules govern the procedure areeither determined in advance oragreed by the participants themselves.The methods of informal participationare varied and flexible; they includeRound Tables, Local Agenda 21(➔Glossary), mediation processes etc.How binding the solutions worked outin informal processes are depends onwhat has been agreed about how totreat the results. As a rule the resultsconsist of recommendations and serveto aid formal bodies such as localcouncils in reaching their decisions.Alternatively, a council resolution canmake results binding. Formal and informal processes areoften dovetailed (see diagram). TheAustrian environmental impact assess-ment act provides for such an audit tobe interrupted by informal mediation,on application by the organizationbehind the project. The result of medi-ation – often made binding in the formof a contract – can be incorporated inthe formal approval process when itrestarts.

Formal and informal public participation

In virtually all cases where constructing plants, roads or shopping centres is envisaged,approval is required from the authorities, and the relevant legal regulations lay down whois entitled to take part in the procedure. On the other hand, if the aim is to draw up acommunity program or to discuss the opportunities and hazards associated with newtechnologies, there are no legal requirements applying to the participation process.

Formal processinitial stage of

environmental impactassessment

Informal process environmental mediation

Formal processenvironmental impactassessment restarts

Example

➔ section onmethodsp. 58 ff.


10

Bas

ics


11

Bas

ics

Benefits of public participation

Participation processes bring togeth-er people with differing interests,views and ideas, who might not oth-erwise have met. As they expresstheir various perspectives, needs andstock of experience, a common poolof knowledge about the manifoldfacets of the project accumulates.Subsequent decisions can take thispool of knowledge into account,which makes them more robust.

Where all interested parties aregiven the chance to collaborate on aproject that would affect them, theyare much more likely to identify withthe result and to accept it whole-heartedly. This means that in manycases the results of a participationprocess achieve more general accep-tance and are more durable; they areimplemented earlier and there is lesslikely to be need of subsequentadjustment (i.e. time and money canbe saved once again). If conflicts ofinterest are tackled within the frame-work of a participation process, thismay well help to avert the threat oflegal action.

As an ordinary citizen you benefitfrom the chance to present yourideas, views and thoughts about atopic or a project. In addition, yourinformation about the project ismore complete and up to date – andyou gain insight into how decisionsare reached.

As a politician you acquire a clearerpicture of the needs of differentgroups of people from a participationprocess, and you can therefore com-municate with ordinary citizens bet-ter. Participation processes make iteasier to accomodate conflictinginterests, and promote a culture ofcollaboration and dialogue – in whichpeople’s interest in politics canreawaken, and ordinary citizens canbe encouraged to get more involvedin politics.

Participation processes can well takepressure off you as an administra-tor, since the project in question hasbeen discussed or worked outtogether with the stakeholders – soyou are less likely to be confrontedwith objections and subsequent com-plaints. In addition, participationprocesses play an important part inincreasing people’s trust in theadministration.

Dialogue with stakeholders can helpyou as an entrepreneur to defuseconflicts with neighbours, or to avoidsuch conflicts in the first place. Will-ingness to discuss things promotesmutual understanding and trust –which can help to avoid appeals dur-ing an approval procedure, and thuscut costs.

For you als a lobbyist or a represen-tative of a common-interest grouptaking part in a participation processis a way to make the interests andideas of the group you represent

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.

➔ section onbenefits /argumentsp. 50 ff.


12

Bas

ics

Benefits of and limits to public participation

better known and to improve yourchance of influencing the course ofevents. Interaction with other pointsof view hones the group’s image, andcan make it more capable of negotiat-ing acceptable compromises in future.

When people with differing ideas, dif-fering job backgrounds and differingexperience of life meet up, their viewsare likely to clash. That is why partici-pation needs time and a willingness tolook hard at other ideas and to engagein discussion and argument. In manycases, though, confrontation betweendiffering points of view is a prerequi-site for deeper insight into the prob-lem in question, leading to new ideasfor solutions. So don’t shy away fromargument – it can move you closer toa joint solution!

Limits to public participation

Participation processes can contributesignificantly to improving the qualityand acceptance of decisions on mattersof public interest. But they do havelimits.

Participation processes have littlechance of success if

■ stakeholders are reluctant to takepart, because (say) they are afraidof being “pocketed”, their previousexperience of participation process-es has put them off, or they believethat they can achieve their aimsbetter in other ways.

■ decision-makers do not supportsuch processes, possibly becausepoliticians and/or administrators areworried about their power todecide being curtailed.

■ there is no scope for action,because the main decisions havealready been made.

■ social diversity and differing degreesof access to participation processescannot be evened out, if (say) theorganizers are unsuccessful ininvolving groups that are hard toreach or disadvantaged (such asmigrants).


13

Bas

ics

International agreements such as theRio Declaration, the Charter of Aal-borg or the Aarhus Convention aremilestones on the road to sustainabledevelopment and to involving thepublic in decision-making. In themeantime the ideas defined in thesedocuments have found their way intolaws and policies (➔Glossary) – bothwithin Austria and at EU level.

Examples of Austrian acts andstatutes that feature arrangementsfor public participation include theGewerbeordnung (trading regula-tions), the Wasserrechtsgesetz(statute on water and waterways) orthe individual provinces’ statutes on

land use. The Austrian constitutionincludes provisions for rights of par-ticipation, in particular in the form ofdirect democracy by way of petition,referendum and official opinion poll.Which legal regulations apply to aparticipation process depends on theactual case in question. The bestplace to start collecting informationis either the administrative depart-ment concerned or (in Austria) theenvironmental ombudsman in yourprovince.

Legal and political framework for public participation

There is a close connection between the aims of establishing public participation morefirmly and of promoting sustainable development (➔Glossary) .

Brundtland Report, 1987Sustainable 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, 1992Resolutions accepting the Rio Declaration and the Agenda 21, the working program for the 21st century: comprehensiveinvolvement of the population in political decison-making is a key prerequisite for sustainable development. A program of actionat community level, the Local Agenda 21 (➔Glossary), is drafted.European Conference in Aalborg, 1994Charter of Aalborg: the signatory states and communities commit themselves to developing long-term plans of action for theircommunities in tune with the Local Agenda 21, and to involve the population in this on a large scale.Aarhus Convention, 1998Regulates public access to information about the environment, public participation in certain decisions relevant to theenvironment, and recourse to courts of law in environmental matters.White Paper on “European Governance”, 2001Lays down general principles of good governmental and administrative practice, including public involvement in shaping policy andreaching decisions at all levels within the EU (national, local etc.).Austrian Strategy for Sustainable Development, 2002Defines a comprehensive long-term policy in which ecological, economic and social aspects are integrated. Transparency andpublic participation are seen as the keys to implementing the Strategy.Aalborg +10 Conference, 2004Resolution accepting the so-called “Aalborg Commitments”: measures to safeguard the quality of life in and the long-term futureof cities and smaller communities in ten thematic fields (including planning, mobility, health and good governance).

Milestones on the road to sustainable development and public participation


14

How

it w

ork

s

Anyone can take the initiative here:

■ Ordinary citizens join forces toinsist on noise abatement measuresalong the new motorway approachroad.

■ Environmental organizations launcha campaign to preserve a protectedor amenity area.

■ Administrators receive instructionsto draw up a broadly-based regionaltransport plan, and ensure assentby the various groups of stakehold-ers.

■ Local politicians want to work outan overall approach to developingtheir community long term, in col-laboration with ordinary citizens.

■ An entrepreneur plans to expand aproduction facility, and wants toagree a framework for this with theneighbours in advance, so as toensure that the project is acceptedand to avoid conflicts and delays.

How public participation begins

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

VACANT

Monarch

the Ultimate

Tyre


15

How

it w

ork

s


➔ checklist on launching p. 53

Get and spread information

■ Gather full details of the circum-stances and less obvious aspects.Have activities already started?What demands, ideas and/or sug-gestions are stakeholders puttingforward? What are they con-cerned about? Where are theareas of conflict? Research theissue in print media and the inter-net, and meet up with peoplefrom your community or locality.You can also make enquiries atCitizens’ Guidance Bureaus, theregional environmental ombuds-man’s office or your local counciloffices.

■ If you (as a lobbyist or an ordinarycitizen) are looking for allies/sup-porters for a campaign, publicizethe issue – via newspaper articles,public meetings, posters, mailings,flysheets or face-to-face talk. If nocampaign is running on your par-ticular issue, and you intend tolaunch one, get together withother interested people to defineyour aims as clearly as possible.What do you aim to achieve?What should the result look likeat the end of a successful partici-pation process? Imagine yourgoals in vivid, pictorial terms –visual images are excellent motiva-tors. The important thing is toconcentrate on realistic goals; youcan distinguish between ones youare committed to reaching andones where you could conceivablylower your sights.

■ As an applicant for projectapproval, a politician or an admin-istrator, communicate informationabout the project in question (andabout access to information)actively to the general public. Allinformation should be concrete,graphic and easy to understand. Itis important to present both theproject’s advantages and its possi-ble drawbacks in a balanced way –this helps to create an atmos-phere of trust.

Find out whether the conditionsnecessary for a formal participa-tion process are fulfilled

■ If a matter of concern or a pro-ject is brought before the authori-ties, they will check whether pub-lic participation is mandatory, e.g.in an environmental audit, instrategic environmental assess-ment (➔Glossary), in land useplanning or in water managementplanning.

■ As a lobbyist/representative of acommon-interest group or anordinary citizen, find out whenyou can intervene and in whatform, and watch out for deadlines.You can enquire about this atyour local council offices, at theauthority concerned or at theregional environmental ombuds-man’s office.


16

How

it w

ork

s


Weigh up the possible benefits ofan informal participation process

■ If obligatory forms of participationare planned, consider whether theyare adequate for reaching your par-ticular goal, or whether a moreintensive participation processmight generate better (sustainable)results.

■ If no formal public participation isplanned, consider the possible ben-efits of an informal participationprocess – particularly if the issue iscontroversial, if you as a politicianor administrator are seeking newways of involving ordinary citizens,or if you want to achieve thewidest possible degree of accep-tance for a given project.

Develop ideas for the course ofthe participation process

■ If you’d like to carry out a moreintensive participation process,think about what a suitable processfor your particular issue might looklike.

■ Write your ideas down and draft aninitial outline; this will make yourideas accessible to other peoplewho you wish to convince thatyour aims make sense. At this stageyou should also think about whatbenefits a participation process canyield for other groups of stakehold-ers, for politicians or for the admin-istration, and where opportunitiesand risks are involved.On p. 50 (➔section on benefits)you will find arguments that mayhelp you to convince other people.

Welcome to ourbrain-stormingsession


17

How

it w

ork

s


■ In the course of planning yourparticipation process you can alsoobtain useful tips and informationfrom professional facilitators(➔Glossary).

Identify the possible forms of aparticipation process with otherstakeholders, politicians and theadministration

■ As a lobbyist/representative of acommon-interest group or ordi-nary citizen, get in touch with thepoliticians or administratorsresponsible and find out whetherthey would support a participationprocess in connection with theissue that concerns you. Presentyour basic approach for a parti-cipation process, and highlight thebenefits it would provide(➔p. 50).

■ For lobbyists/representatives of acommon-interest group and ordi-nary citizens it makes sense totake the stage as a group, so as toshow that the idea in question issupported by large numbers ofpeople, not just a handful of indi-viduals.

■ Discuss the next moves neededto launch the participationprocess, and make clear arrange-ments about who takes care ofwhat with whom by when.

■ Agree on who will take charge ofmanaging/coordinating the partici-pation process, and how it will befinanced.

■ Agree the basic approach to theparticipation process with theother people involved.

If you have succeeded in con-vincing other people, prepara-tions can start for carrying theparticipation process out.

➔ section on fundingp. 57

Gather and spread information

Find out whether the conditions necessary for a formal participation process are fulfilled

Weigh the possible benefits of an informal participation process

Develop ideas for the sequence of events in the participation process

Clarify the possible forms of a participation process withother stakeholders, politicians and the administration

Step by step to aparticipation process


18

How

it w

ork

s

Clarify aims and assignment

■ It must be clear to everyoneinvolved what the aim of the partic-ipation process is and what theactual assignment is. To get thingsinto focus it helps to spotlight theinitial situation and recent develop-ments, e.g.: What is our concern?How did we get involved? Who isaffected?

■ The outcome must not be a fore-gone conclusion, so room tomanoeuvre is essential. If decisionshave already been taken in someareas – if, say, it has been decidedto build a road, and the process isconcerned only with the details ofimplementation – these fixed pointsmust be identified. For the processto succeed, it is important thateveryone involved is aware whichissues are to be discussed andwhich are not (no longer).

How public participation succeeds

In-depth preparation is essential for the participation process to succeed.This way you achieve favourable conditions for the process to go well, beforethe first event starts.While the process is being carried out, it is well worthchecking repeatedly whether the necessary quality criteria are beingobserved, so that your project stays on course.

➔ checklists on preparing andimplementing p. 54 ff.

pedestrianprecinct

traffic

census


19

How

it w

ork

s


Invite all stakeholders to take part

■ The participation process shouldbe open to all individuals andgroups with an interest in oraffected by the issue. Where anumber of people have similarinterests, they can nominate a sin-gle representative to championtheir cause in the participationprocess. Environmental interestscan be advocated by environmen-tal organizations or (in Austria) bythe environmental ombudsmen atprovince level. It is important forinvitations to go out to all groupsof stakeholders. As far as possible,women and men should beinvolved in roughly equal num-bers.

■ For collaboration within the par-ticipation process to succeed,rules need to be agreed abouthow to treat one another andhow to handle information. Forinstance, the arrangement mightbe that all participants have thesame rights and duties, get thesame information, have the sameopportunities to speak and caninfluence the result of the processto the same extent.

■ Taking part in participationprocesses is invariably voluntary!Stakeholders will participate pro-vided that they can see benefits indoing so, and provided that possi-ble fears can be dispelled.

Allow sufficient time and money

■ A participation process needstime. So that those affected/inter-ested can judge whether theyhave enough time to take part, itmakes sense to draw up a timeschedule. You must allow time for(inter alia) taking part in events orpublic meetings, for studyingdocuments, for acquiring addition-al information, for negotiationsand for organizing meetings. Thetime frame should be generousenough to avoid time pressure,and include leeway for additionalrequirements that may crop upunexpectedly.

■ Persons who take part in a parti-cipation process in their sparetime (free of charge) ought toreceive a token of appreciationfor their involvement. Apart fromfinancial compensation, one mightconsider an award to be made atthe party to wind up the processwith the mayor, other public hon-ours, outings together, publishingphotographs of the participants inthe regional newspapers with anexpression of thanks, or pricereductions for facilities such as thelocal swimming-pool, the library,exhibitions, public transport etc.

■ Making sure of the necessary cashfor the participation process is anessential prerequisite. Whatexpenses can arise in a participa-tion process? How high the costsare depends on the methodselected, the duration and scale ofthe project, etc. – each participa-

Get professional help

Any participation processwill benefit from profes-sional support; ideally, thisis a task for so-called facili-tators (➔Glossary). Theirjob is to prepare, accom-pany and structure theparticipation process andto evaluate it in retro-spect.

➔ section on case histories p. 22 ff.


20

How

it w

ork

s


tion process needs individual cost-ing. The global figures listed for var-ious case histories in this manualwill give you some idea of what toexpect. If you intend to spend morethan very modest sums, we recom-mend that you obtain quotationsfrom several possible partners: forinstance, fees for facilitators andexperts’ reports, rent for meeting-rooms, the cost of food and drinkat meetings, producing and distrib-uting informatory material, a web-site, possible financial compensationfor persons taking part on a volun-tary basis, etc.

■ To make sure of the necessary cashfor the participation process, youshould approach the organizationsand groups that mainly benefit fromit. That may be the administrationor politicians (e.g. the local council),or groups of stakeholders, or orga-nizations applying for projectapproval. It is always wise to lookfor more than one source ofmoney; that ensures that theprocess is independent and credi-ble, and avoids giving any impres-sion of “The one who pays thepiper calls the tune”.

Make it clear how much influencethe participants have and whatwill be done with the results

■ All those taking part must be awarefrom the start how much influencethey have on the result and whotakes what decisions in the partici-pation process. Are the participantssimply informed, can they makestatements, or do they actually havea say in decisions?

■ It must also be made clear what willhappen to the results of the partici-pation process, how binding theyare and how they will be incorpo-rated in subsequent formal decisionstructures such as a vote by thelocal council. Will the result bepassed on to the local council as arecommendation for a decision, orwill it be embodied in a privateagreement between stakeholders?

Tie the process in with existingdecision procedures

■ For most tasks in the public sphereformal statutory decision proce-dures exist, e.g. for an authorityapproving industrial plant. Informalparticipation processes are notregulated in this way, and theresults of such processes thusgenerally count only as recommen-dations. Public support can give theresults of a participation processmore weight. However, in mostcases no legal right exists for theresults to be incorporated in theactual decision. That is why it isimportant for informal participationprocesses to be tied into the formaldecision procedures (➔p.10).

➔ section on funding p. 57


21

How

it w

ork

s


■ It is also necessary to find outhow much support is forthcomingfrom politicians and the adminis-tration at any early stage. Ideallythe political decision-makersshould agree to accept the resultsof the participation process and togive reasons for any departuresfrom these results. A commitmentof this kind contributes significant-ly to the success of the participa-tion process, signalling as it doesto those taking part that politi-cians and the administrationsupport the process and take itseriously.

Make sure that informationreaches whoever needs it

■ To ensure that the participationprocess proceeds constructivelyand even-handedly, it is essentialto make all the information rele-vant to the process available toeveryone involved in time andwithout a break.

■ In many cases people who are notdirectly involved or cannot takepart throughout are keenly inter-ested in the participation processnone the less. Public-relationsactivities enable you to achievetransparency and may well resultin widening public support for theprocess.

■ Proper documentation of the par-ticipation process in the form ofinterim reports, minutes of meet-ings, photos, etc. makes theresults intelligible even to peoplenot involved in the process, andfacilitates argumentation vis-à-vispoliticians who you want todecide to implement the results ofthe completed process.

➔ checklist for public relations p. 56

Clarify aims and assignment

Invite all stakeholders to take part

Allow sufficient time and money

Make it clear how much influence the participants have and what will be done with the results

Tie the process in with existing decision procedures

Make sure that information reaches whoever needs it

Proper preparationsets the stage for successful implementation


22

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

A total of 14 case histories are pre-sented, covering a wide range of appli-cations for public participation – fromtransport and mobility issues viaregional development all the way tocommunity work – and illustrating howvaried participation processes actuallyare. Details are given of how participa-tion processes have been carried outin Austria, what methods have beenemployed and what results have actual-ly been achieved.

The case histories have been selectedon the basis of criteria such as being ofcurrent interest, how far implementa-tion has proceeded, how much innova-tive content they possess and whetherthey are applicable in other situations.Some examples are taken from fieldsin which a wealth of experience withpublic participation exists, others fromareas in which only a handful of pilotprojects have been carried out so far.

The examples chosen also vary asregards how intensive participationwas. Some were mainly concernedwith information and consultation;others allowed those taking part aconsiderable say in decisions. And thefocus of the participation processvaries from case to case, too: someaddress all aspects of a given planningprocedure, others are restricted todiffering variants of or to concomitantmeasures for a project.

A box at the top of the page lists keydata for each process presented; thetext below describes in brief what ledto the process, its aims, how it wentand the results. More details abouteach case history are available fromthe contacts and websites mentioned;www.partizipation.at features fulldescriptions of the processes (inGerman; some are also described inEnglish).

The case histories on the pages thatfollow cannot give more than a glimpseof the variety of participation praxis inAustria. But the resulting overview ofpossible applications and methodsshould encourage you to make use ofpublic participation in your specialfield, too.

Case histories from Austria

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

➔ website www.partizipation.at

Initial cue■ Conflicts betweenyoung people keen onsport who inline skatearound the estate andadults living there whoneed peace and quiet –and thus feel botheredby the resulting noise

Goal ■ Jointly developing asolution that allows forthe adults’ need ofpeace and quiet whilegiving the youngsters achance to enjoy theirsport

Sequence of eventsWhen the conflict be-tween the people livingon the estate and theyoung inline skaters be-came acute, the em-ployees at the localcommunity centre gotin touch with everyoneinvolved. The young-sters got an opportuni-

ty to point out whatconcerned them, thatthere is a shortage ofspace, on programsbroadcast on “RadioSchöpfwerk” (the radiostation specially for thisestate).In the course of re-search an acoustic testtook place in one ofthe flats affected bynoise; the inline skaterswere thus able to ex-perience the noise levelgenerated by theirsport. Subsequent me-diation led to an agree-ment that the youngpeople would stop in-line skating on the es-tate, and that the adultswould help them tofind an alternative site.In the end the jointsearch identified a suit-able site near the es-tate. After inspectionby youngsters, adultsand administrators

from the city council,and a meeting with theborough chairperson,the decision was takento convert the spaceinto a proper inlineskating zone withoutdelay. The young peo-ple took part in plan-ning the zone.

Results■ The young peoplewere involved in howthe new skating zonewas arranged■ The zone wasopened six monthsafter the conflict hadbecome acute.

Inline skater park Am Schöpfwerk

Location: ViennaThose involved: young people andadults living on the estate AmSchöpfwerkFacilitation and guidance:Stadtteilzentrum Bassena (the localcommunity centre)Cost/funding: 46,000 Euro/City ofVienna and private sponsorsProject duration:01/2003 to 06/2003Method: structured discussionsbetween conflicting parties Contact: Renate Schnee,manager of Stadtteilzentrum Bassena(the local community centre)T +43 (0)1 667 94 80E [email protected] information:www.bassena.at

Opening ceremony on 24 July 2003Photo: Bassena


23

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

Many thanks to: Renate Schnee, Stadtteilzentrum Bassena

“They’ve actually managedto get this difficult conflictout of the estate –permanently.”

A local politician

“I’m bound to recommendthis to other young people:you just have to gettogether and negotiate.Wereally got somewhere!”

A youngster

Mediation processNatura 2000 Verwall

Excursion toSilbertal:negotiating on the spot Photo: Wolfgang Pfefferkorn


24

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

Initial cue■ Acute conflictsbetween landowners,users and the authori-ties in the Verwall areaafter the provincial gov-ernment had designatedit a Natura 2000 zone ■ Areas of conflicttourism, agriculture andforestry in the zone inconnexion with conser-vation issues■ Communicationsteadily deterioratingbetween the authoritiesand other stakeholders

Goal■ Negotiating agree-ments about the futureuse of the designatedconservation zonebetween landowners,users, various otherlobbies and the authori-ties

Sequence of eventsAt the suggestion ofthe environmental om-budswoman, theprovincial governmentof Vorarlberg decidedto implement a media-tion process. To startwith, the mediatorsheld exploratory talksand informatory meet-ings, so as to get a gen-eral picture of the con-flict situation and tosettle who should takepart in the process forthe time being.Initially the most im-portant aspects werepooling information andreappraising the previ-ous course of events.After three rounds ofnegotiations, severalmeetings of the variousstudy groups (agricul-ture, forestry, huntingand tourism), excur-sions and inspections,the participants had

“Step by step anatmosphere of trust wasestablished between theparticipants – making itpossible to work togetherand to reappraise therecent past and its legacyof resentment.Without themediation process wewould have been unable toimplement the Natura2000 zonal managementscheme.”

Max Albrecht

Location: Verwall (in the Montafonregion), VorarlbergThose involved: representatives offarming, forestry, hunting, tourismand conservation interests, themayors of the four communitiesaffected, representatives of theBludenz district administration andof the provincial government ofVorarlberg (including the environ-mental ombudswoman)Funding: Vorarlberg provincialadministrationFacilitation and guidance:Rosinak&Partner, Vienna (a planningconsultancy)

jointly compiled anoverall draft of theagreements. The coreof these agreementsconsisted of proposalsfor harmonizing thevarious forms of use inVerwall with the re-quirements of a Natura

2000 zone. After theparticipants in the me-diation forum had dis-cussed this draft intheir separate groups,the process concludedwith an agreement.

Results■ Agreement regulat-ing future use and howthe zone is to be moni-tored (report on thestate of the zone andon implementation ofthe measures defined,based on specified indi-cators); the decreeestablishing the Natura2000 zone refers tothis■ Decree establishingthe zone (based on theagreements reached inthe mediation process),in force since October2003■ Supplementaryreport listing all theviewpoints and propos-als that no agreementwas reached on duringthe process.■ Establishment of aconsultative committeein which the authoritiesconcerned, thosedirectly affected and

the various lobbies arerepresented. Since2004 the committeehas met once a year todiscuss all matters ofimportance involvingthe Natura 2000 zone,including the agree-ments made.

N.B.:You will find moreabout the issue ofparticipation in connex-ion with conservingbiological diversity andutilizing it sustainably atwww.biodiv.at/chm

The negotiatingteam meetsMontafonPhoto: Katharina Lins

The far end ofSilbertal in theVerwall Natura2000 zonePhoto: Katharina Lins

Project duration: 01/2001 to10/2003; meetings of the consultativecommittee began in 2004 Method: mediationContact:Max Albrecht, Amt der Vorarlberger Landesregierung(provincial administration ofVorarlberg) T: +43 (0)5574/511-24511E: [email protected] information:www.partizipation.at (file with fulldetails in German/English can bedownloaded here)


25

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

Structure of the mediation process for Verwall

Mediation team2 persons

Negotiating team33 delegates

Study groups on

Organizations and lobbies

Specialists co-opted at need

Source: Hiess/Pfefferkorn

Departments within provincialadministration, Agrarbezirksbehörde

(“Farming district authority”)

Environmental ombudsman and BirdLife

District administration

Mayors

Landowners

Hill-pasture cooperatives

Owners of woodland

Game management association heads (hunting)

Tourism association

ForestryAgriculture

Hunting Tourism

Clientprovincial administration

of Vorarlberg

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

Location: the Möll valley, KärtnenThose involved: residents of theMöll valley, NGOs, other stakehold-ers (e.g. Nationalpark Hohe Tauern,electricity suppliers), representativesof local councils, the province andthe federal government, a multi-dis-ciplinary research team coveringhydrobiology, landscape planning,agriculture etc. Facilitation and guidance:University of Natural Resources andApplied Life Sciences, Vienna, Insti-tute of Hydrobiology and AquaticEcosystem Management, AustrianInstitute for Sustainable Develop-ment

Developing an overall concept for the Möll valley

Starting-point■ Research project“Types of river land-scape in Austria – over-all concepts to develop-ing river landscapessustainably”.

Goal■ Experts were tocompile a specializedapproach/model withtargets and measuresfor the Möll river land-scape, complying withthe Water FrameworkDirective and takingecological, social andeconomic aspects intoaccount to the sameextent; parallel to this,the general public wasto be kept informedand ordinary citizenswere to work out aparticipatory model forthe entire Möll valley.

Sequence of eventsThe central element inthis research projectwas compiling aspecialized scientificapproach/model withwhich to achieve agood ecological statusof the river Möll. Theresearch project wassupplemented by fourparticipatory elements.

■ 1st Möll valleyworkshopPublic participationstarted with the 1st

Mölltal workshop toinform stakeholders inadministration, in therelevant fields of praxisand the region in ques-tion about the contentand aims of the re-search project. Theresearch team thendefined what the Möllought to look like inorder to meet theWater Framework

Directive’s requirementof “good ecologicalstatus”. The currentecological status of theMöll and the ways inwhich the river wasbeing used weresurveyed.

■ Discussion aboutthe future Meanwhile a discussionabout the future tookplace, at which interest-ed residents developeda participatory modelfor the entire Möllvalley, featuring targetsand measures to betaken in the areas “Life-line Möll”, natural andman-made environ-ment, agriculture andforestry, society andculture, business andtourism.

Discussing on thespot how best toregenerate theriver MöllPhoto: Institute ofHydrobiology and AquaticEcosystem Management


26

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

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

“The best overall concept isworthless – unlessdeveloped and backed bythe people living in theregion.”

A participant

■ 2nd Möll valleyworkshopIn the 2nd Möll valleyworkshop the participa-tory model for theentire Möll valley, thesurvey of the currentstatus of the river andrequirements of theWater FrameworkDirective were pre-sented and discussed.

■ Specializedapproach/modelThe research teamthen drew up a special-ized approach/modelfor the Möll, designedto achieve the soundecological status re-quired; it describes thetypical features of thewatercourse and theanimals and plants thatwould live there if hu-man beings had only avery limited impact onthe river. This special-ized approach/model

for the actual river sup-plements the participa-tory model for the en-tire Möll valley.The research team alsoworked out specificwater managementmeasures to improvethe ecology of the Möll(e.g. removing conven-tional river engineeringmeasures, more waterfor the Möll from thereservoir upstream)and assessed these asregards sustainabilityand cost effectiveness.

■ 3rd Möll valleyworkshopIn the 3rd Möll valleyworkshop the resultsof this assessment werediscussed with the par-ticipants and the direc-tion taken was ap-proved. The researchteam then drew upspecific recommenda-tions for improving the

quality of the river inthe light of the scientif-ic findings, the work-shops and interviewswith the stakeholdersinvolved.As this was purely aresearch project, nofinal political decisionwas taken about theoverall concept for theMöll valley. However,the recommendationswere incorporated inthe approach subse-quently developed formanaging the river. Thestrategy was finalized atthe end of 2004, and astart made on imple-menting its provisions.By the summer of 2005the project had beensuccessfully completed.

Results■ Eight specific re-commendations formeasures to improvethe Möll’s ecologicalstatus■ Incorporation ofthese recommenda-tions in the river man-agement strategy (thekey planning instrumentfor water managementin Austria).

Student excur-sion Photo: Institute forHydrobiology and AquaticEcosystem Management

Close-to-naturestretch of theRiver MöllPhoto: UmweltbüroKlagenfurt

Funding: Federal Ministry forEducation, Science and Culture, as part of a research program on man-made environmentsProject duration: 02/2000 to06/2004 (research project plusparticipation process)Methods: workshops, discussionabout the future Contact:Wilhelm Pacher, Mayor ObervellachT: +43 (0)4782 3055E: [email protected] information:www.flusslandschaften.at


27

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

Alfred Strigl, Austrian Institute for Sustainable Development; Gregory Egger, Institute for Ecology and Environmental Planning;

Location: GrazThose involved:residents of three districts in Graz,Local Agenda 21 MAnagers(LAMAs), City of Graz Departmentof the EnvironmentCost/funding:approx. 140,000 Euro / 50 % City ofGraz, 50 % EU LIFEFacilitation and guidance:ARGE Müllvermeidung, GrazProject duration:01/2001 to 06/2003Methods: informatory meetings,opinion polls, animation, studygroups

Framework■ G.O.A.L. – GesundOhne Auto und Lärm(“Healthy without a caror noise”): campaign tolower noise and pollu-tion levels by diminish-ing motor traffic, andto improve physicalwellbeing and fitness

Aims■ In the module “Aplace worth living in”:joint development ofmeasures to improvethe quality of life inthree districts in Graz,with residents activelyinvolved and with sup-port from volunteersengaged by the council

FocusThe G.O.A.L. projectcontained seven mod-ules, all concerned withvarious ways of avoid-ing traffic and noise andimproving the quality oflife. The module “Aplace worth living in”involved a new depar-ture: in three residen-tial areas – in the Lenddistrict and on the twoestates Laudongasse/Starhemberggasse andTerrassenhaussiedlung(Terrace-House Estate)– Local AgendaMAnagers (LAMAs)


28

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

“That was the first timethe City ever showed up inmy neighbourhood!”

A resident

“Training as a LAMA is thestart of a continual processof learning, in which weLAMAs get to grips withour field of activity(together with ourneighbours), amplify theskills required for this andthen make fuller use ofthem!”

Lisbeth Postl, a LAMA

The LAMAs LAMAs are residents from around the target areas who act as go-betweens between residents, housing estatemanagements and the city administration. A total of 14 applicants for voluntary work as LAMAs were given free training in structuring discussions, conflictmanagement, 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-ing. At informal meetings the LAMAs had opportunities to pool and reflect on their experience. An official pass – the LAMA Card – identifies the LAMAs as volunteers engaged by the council.

A place worth living in –G.O.A.L., Graz A LAMA

in a discussion

developed measuresaimed at improvingquality of life andpromoting cooperation,together with and forresidents, housing es-tate managements andthe city administration.

The LAMAs’activitiesThe LAMAs and theproject management in-formed the residents inthe three areas aboutthe idea behind theproject, and organizedopinion polls and dis-cussions on the issue ofquality of life in eacharea. The main topicsthat emerged were get-ting along with youngpeople (drugs and noiseas problem areas), theimpact of noise (bothfrom traffic and fromneighbours) and frictionbetween tenants and

housing estate manage-ments. In each area a G.O.A.L.committee was set up,consisting of projectmanagement, politiciansand administrators, res-idents and grassrootsinitiatives, plus theLAMAs. These commit-tees identified key is-sues for each area onthe basis of the wishesand problems broughtforward, while guaran-teeing reliable imple-mentation of the re-sults. LAMAs and resi-dents then worked outideas for improvementsand concrete sugges-tions in study groups.

Results■ Improved relationsbetween tenants andhousing estate manage-ments, e.g. after the an-nual accounts for rentdue were made clearer,or because residentswere consulted aboutrenovation projects■ Mediation processeswere initiated in Lend(noise) and St. Peter(inline skating)■ A skating rink wasinitiated, support wasforthcoming for theidea of an inline skatingzone in a park (Volks-garten), and trainingcourses in Hip Hop,streetball and footballwere organized foryoung people

■ Improvements weremade to the surround-ings: for instance,guidelines were agreedfor minimizing noiseduring flat conversion,dog loos were installed,an energy-saving pro-ject was launched andplants were put in place■ A “traffic and noisesummit” was held inTerrassenhaussiedlung■ The G.O.A.L. projectmodule “A place worthliving in” was made apermanent element ofthe City of Graz’ LocalAgenda 21 activities■ A second trainingcourse for LAMAs wasconducted

Agenda partyPhotos: Andrea Grabher

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


29

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

Many thanks to: Peter Gspaltl, City of Graz Environment Department; Andrea Grabher, ARGE Müllvermeidung

Citizen jury for Obere Neutorgasse, Graz

Starting-point ■ Unanimous vote bythe City Council toextend the pedestrianprecinct in ObereNeutorgasse in Grazand to conduct a publicparticipation projectbeforehand

Goal■ Developing propos-als for traffic calming inObere Neutorgasse

Sequence of eventsThe participationprocess started with aninformatory meetingaimed at the generalpublic to explain whatwas meant to happen.Next, residents andshopkeepers gatheredideas for traffic calmingin Neutorgasse in aworkshop for targetgroups. At a RoundTable lobbyists addedfurther suggestions. Meanwhile 65 men andwomen from Grazwere selected at

Hard at workin a smallgroup


30

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

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

“For once, public-spiritedcitizens were able toprovide a creative impulsein the shaping of the placewhere they live – asuccessful switch from“moaning away in thebackground” to having anactive say.”

Peter Schmidl, a citizen juror

The sequence of events

PRELIMINARYPHASE Council decisionto implement theparticipationprocess

GETTINGTARGETGROUPS ANDLOBBYISTSINVOLVED • Informatorymeeting • Workshop fortarget groups • Round Table

CITIZENJURIES • Four juries todevelop a basicapproach

FEEDBACK Discussion of results withlobbyists

random for four studygroups, the so-calledcitizen juries. Theirwork began with anintroduction and abrainstorming session.Experts from city andtransport planning pro-vided them with basicinformation, which theysupplemented on thespot in Neutorgasse. At this point the jurorsworked out approacheswhich they concretizedas actual plans. All in allthey were at work onsolutions for traffic

calming in Neutorgassefor one evening andtwo full days. Theyreceived token remu-neration for this. The juries’ findingswere discussed withthe lobbyists at aRound Table. The facili-tator summarized theresults in the jury re-port, which representa-tives of the four juriesthen counterchecked.Next, the jurors pre-sented their findings tothe politicians con-cerned (decision-mak-

ers for the City ofGraz), including theCouncillor responsiblefor the project, whobrought the results be-fore the inner council.All the political groupson the council acceptedthe juries’ recommen-dations, and budgetfunds were earmarkedaccordingly.

Results■ Proposals for trafficcalming in and a newlayout for Obere Neu-torgasse: concensusrecommendation incor-porating some novelideas■ Presentation of theresults in the innercouncil, support fromall political groups onthe Graz council,financial provision forimplementaion■ Work began on thefirst measures inautumn 2004

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


31

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

Many thanks to: Kurt Hörmann and Petra Gradwohl, Referat für BürgerInnenbeteiligung Graz; Peter Schmidl, a juror

Inspection onthe spot

Ideas incourse ofdevelopmentPhotos: forum b

JURY REPORT• Drafting• Feedback fromjuries• Presentation todecision-makers

DECISION• Presentation ininner council• Funds ear-marked in budget

IMPLEMENTA-TION• Informationabout implemen-tation• Initial stepstaken

Location: Bodensee region(Germany, Liechtenstein, Austria,Switzerland) Those involved: 1200 youngpeople from Baden-Württemberg,Bayern, Vorarlberg and severalSwiss cantonsFacilitation and guidance:Jugenddornbirn Funding: Bodensee Agenda 21,Office for Future Affairs VorarlbergState Youth CouncilProject duration:08/2002 to 12/2003Methods: conferences, workshops,project markets, Round Tables,internet forum

Young people’s declaration,Bodensee (Lake Constanz)

Background■ In 1998 the Interna-tional Bodensee Con-ference (IBK), a forumfor the regions border-ing on Bodensee aimedat solving the environ-mental problems in thisregion, launched theBodensee Agenda 21;in 2003 the focus wason children, young peo-ple and their proposalsfor a sustainable future

Goal■ Children and youngpeople draw up aYouth Declaration on developing theBodensee regionsustainably

Sequence of eventsThe Youth Declarationwas prepared in a vari-ety of settings withschoolchildren and rep-resentatives from youthparliaments, councilsand other organiza-tions.First of all, a list oftopics that particularlyinterest young peoplewas put together. 18 ofthese were put to avote in the internet.

The topics• Forms of politicalparticipation• Human rights• The job market• Energy and climateproblems• Watergot the most votes;they were investigatedfurther (again in theinternet), and a cata-logue of specific

demands was drawnup. All in all, more than350 young people fromthe region made anactive contribution todrafting the declaration,which was then submit-ted to the First Interna-tional Youth Summit,discussed in depth bythe delegates there,made more specific andfinally adopted. Rightfrom the start care wastaken that the youngpeople could formulatetheir ideas anddemands without adultinfluence, and that theystructured their discus-sions themselves.

The Declarationis presented topoliticians inVorarlberg


32

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

“That was the first timethat politicians actuallylistened to young peoplefrom Vorarlberg. Now theyknow about our wishes anddemands, and can takeaccount of them in theirdecisions. I reckon theytake us seriously.”

A juvenile participant

ResultsInternational YouthSummit inFriedrichshafen on14.11.2003:young people presentand discuss the YouthDeclaration on Sustain-able Development.More than 1200 youngpeople taking partadopt the Declarationand present it to theMinister for the Envi-ronment and Transportin Baden-Württemberg(representing the politi-cians in the Bodenseeregion).

The First Youth Decla-ration on SustainableDevelopment in theBodensee region is cen-tred on the followingtopics and exemplarydemands (specific mea-sures are detailed inthe Declaration):■ Forms of politicalparticipation: intro-ducing elements ofdirect democracy (ref-erendum, petition), in-volving representativesof the younger genera-tion in decision-makingat council level■ Human rights andsocial integration:respect for humanrights around theworld, importance oftolerance and social in-tegration.■ Job market: bettereducation, “Work mustbe rewarding”, aware-ness-raising and infor-mation

■ Sources of energyand climate prob-lems: shifting moreheavy traffic from roadto rail, promoting re-search on renewablesources of energy, tax-es imposed primarilyon pollutants and harm-ful effects■ Water: constantcitizen involvement inregional decisionprocesses on wateruse, closer monitoringof industry in the re-gion, ban on selling wa-ter supply systems orrights to private firmsin other countries.

Young people in Vo-rarlberg adapted theDeclaration to the spe-cial situation there. Todate several politicianshave given the YouthDeclaration seriousconsideration, and in-structed specialized de-

partments to provideexpert assessments andto think over possibleways of implementingits demands. The young people inthe region continue tohave a say in the dis-cussion process aboutthe future of the Bo-densee region the de-mands presented in theDeclaration; the inter-net platform is availableto them for this, as isassistance at public dis-cussions or in projects.In addition, it has beenagreed to continue theprocess of dialogue be-tween the young peo-ple concerned and thepoliticians responsible.

In November 2005progress with imple-mentation was dis-cussed at the SecondInternational YouthSummit.

Preparing for the Youth Summit

Photos: Office for Future Affairs

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


33

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

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

Location: Munderfing, UpperAustriaThose involved: entrepreneurs,politicians, administrators, lobbyists,representatives of schools and othereducational facilities, ordinarycitizens Funding: Province of UpperAustria, European Fund for RegionalDevelopment Facilitation and guidance: InstitutRetzl GmbH, Community Research &Consulting LinzProject duration:11/2003 to 12/2004Methods: future workshops, studygroups, public meetings/events,network development etc.

Motives■ Building on positiveexperience with publicparticipation inMunderfing (a commu-nity of about 2700people) in connexionwith Local Agenda 21 ■ Promoting long-termeconomic developmentin the community andkeeping it competitivein the circumstancesobtaining (such asglobalization, structuralproblems in ruralareas)

Goal■ The “Local actionplan for employmentand education” was in-tended to intensify thelinks between businesspeople, politicians, ad-ministrators, educators,lobbies representingemployers and employ-ees, and ordinary citi-zens on the spot. Keyplayers at the local andregional levels were tobe involved in intensify-ing various forms of co-operation, and employ-ment and economicgrowth given new im-petus. Special attentionwas to be paid to“soft” locational factorsaffecting the quality oflife (environment, childcare facilities etc.)

Sequence of eventsPoliticians, businesspeople, administrators,educators, representa-tives of regional andsupraregional organiza-tions and interestedcitizens drew up the“Local action plan foremployment and educa-tion” together, aimedat boosting employ-ment locally. Councilofficials talked to anynumber of people be-forehand, to make sureof getting all the impor-tant partners (firms,the local employmentexchange, the localchamber of commerce,schools, parents, inter-ested citizens etc.)involved in the project.


34

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

“During the conference itdawned on us just howmuch potential is on handin the community andamong the experts takingpart. In future one of themost important tasks willbe to make conscious useof these strengths incollaboration with others.”

Erwin Moser

“Without an organizedprocess it is very hard forindividuals to introducenew ideas and implementthem successfully. On theother hand, the processalone has no effect unlessit is given substance bypeople – with their ideas,visions and knowledge.”

A facilitator

Local action plan for employment and education

■ Conference foremployment andeducation The “Munderfing LocalConference for Em-ployment and Educa-tion”, which more than50 people took part in,marked the official startof the process. Themain focus was on find-ing ways of improvingthe employment situa-tion in the community,in the interests of busi-ness and the generalpublic. Standards for along-term communalemployment and eco-nomic policy were laiddown and strategiesdefined, e.g. to establishlinks between firms andschools in Munderfing.After the workshopthat followed, sevenspecific projects had

taken shape. A lot ofwork went into settingup a local networkmade up of people will-ing to work on imple-menting the LABB long-term.

■ Conferences tocontinue These conferencesshould go on takingplace – and involve in-creasing numbers ofpeople. Interested citi-zens can find out aboutthe activities of the net-work, and put forwardideas of their own; thisway widespread sup-port for the “Localaction plan” should beensured among thegeneral public.

Results■ Development of the“Local Alliance for Em-ployment and Educa-tion” (extending be-yond Munderfing itself:coordinated and sup-ported by the networkmanagement in counciladministration and by anetwork consultativecommittee)■ Munderfing councilvote to support “Localaction plan”■ 7 projects imple-mented autonomouslyby more than 50 net-work partners: • Service point for localfirms, operated byMunderfing council • “Boarding pass” net-work aimed at improv-ing access to the local /regional job market forjob seekers

• “Cooperation triangleschool – firms – par-ents” aimed at prepar-ing young people forthe job world effective-ly• “Munderfing businessworkshops” (3 times ayear) as a platform forexchanging informationand for networking • Regional training facili-ties to enable entrepre-neurs and employees toobtain qualificationsnear where they live • “House of theGenerations” to createalternative child carefacilities in Munderfing• “Munderfing rentalagency” to findproduction sites andoffice space for entre-preneurs.

“Local actionplan”conferencePhotos: Munderfing council

Contact:Erwin Moser, Munderfing council chief officerT: +43 (0)7744 62 55E: [email protected] information:www.munderfing.atwww.institut-retzl.at


35

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

Many thanks to: Erwin Moser, Munderfing council; Matthias Raßbach, Institut Retzl

Location: Hartberg region, StyriaThose involved: entrepreneurs,residents of the region, representa-tives of the public sector (localcouncils, district administrationetc.), schools and numerous localand regional organizations, associa-tions and clubs Facilitation and guidance:Austrian Institute for SustainableDevelopment, Vienna (sociologicalmanagement); Entwicklungs-förderungsverband Bezirk Hartberg,Hartberg; Ökologische Landent-wicklung Steiermark, Hartberg;Wallner & Schauer, Graz/Vienna;Integrierte Ländliche Entwicklung,Hartberg/Graz

Hartberg regional cluster

Motive ■ Regional cluster as apilot project to boostthe regional economy,with the aim of improv-ing the quality of life inthe region

Goal■ Stimulating sustain-able development ofthe regional economy■ Linking up entrepre-neurs from all sectorsof the economy in theregion, people living inthe area and represen-tatives of the publicsector■ Linking up producersin the Hartberg region(collaboration betweenproducers and con-sumers) ■ Replacing importsfrom outside the regionwith local products(from farmers,manufacturers, thetourist sector and

other service indus-tries) ■ Boosting exportsfrom the region (slo-gan: “Export productsand services, not com-muters!”)

Sequence of eventsRoughly 150 partici-pants were active in thefuture workshop andthe study groups, withup to 1400 others in-volved in the process atsome stage. The nucle-us was made up of se-lected project partnerswho met at regular in-tervals to coordinatetheir activities and planconcrete measures suchas regional cluster fora,for instance. The pro-ject team, which devel-oped the process de-sign together, was madeup of all project part-ners, representatives ofthe administration, and

the board of thedevelopment promo-tion association.

■ Starting eventsThe project (sequenceof events planned, con-tent, goals and benefits)was presented and theregional clusterlaunched in a start-upworkshop for the pro-ject team and a start-upevent. This motivatedthe participants to dotheir utmost in orderto strengthen theregion.

■ Future workshop More than 60 peopleinvested two full daysin a future workshop atwhich a shared visionof how to develop theregion was worked outand key issues forachieving the goalswere identified.

Future workshopin the Hartbergregion – “Firstvisions, thendeeds”


36

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

“Future workshops are afantastic method ofmaximizing theopportunities for everyonetaking part to contribute toand have a say in theresults.”

Ferdinand Zisser

■ Regional clusterforaThese are the transmis-sion belt for ongoingactivities. The fora aremade as attractive aspossible, to ensure thatlocal people are drawnto them.

■ Regional studygroups On the basis of the keyissues identified at thefuture conference,various idea-generatinggroups were set up.

Results■ An overall approachwas agreed for the re-gion and specific goalsand measures defined■ Cooperation be-tween firms, localcouncils and consumersis being promoted■ Projects such as aninnovation prize and anoratory competitionfor young people wereimplemented■ Young people andschools are being mademore aware of theregional economy■ Awareness of inno-vation as an issue isbeing promoted, andsupport provided forspecific initiatives byentrepreneurs■ An institutionalstructure has takenshape for the regionalcluster (a committeemade up of politicians,entrepreneurs and ad-

ministrators has beenset up, as has a mem-bership scheme, etc.)

During 2003 a startwas made on puttingthe ideas developed inthe study groups intopractice. Concrete examples: • Energy self-suffi-ciency for the Hart-berg region: pushingrenewable sources ofenergy in the region tomake it much less de-pendent on importedenergy.• A consumers’ plat-form has beenlaunched: producersand consumers in theregion can now com-municate with eachother much moreeffectively (e.g. aboutconsumers’ preferencesand similar issues). A regional shoppingcatalogue has been

published, an instanttest for wideawakeconsumers (“Aktiv-kunden Schnelltest”)drawn up and a con-sumer feedback/mark-ing facility set up.• Barrier-free Hart-berg: steps are beingtaken to eliminateobstacles and barriersfor people with handi-caps in everyday lifeand employment(including removal ofphysical barriers).• Sustainability atschool: various activi-ties confront teachers,pupils and institutionsresponsible for schoolupkeep with the issueof sustainability and theeffects on the region.

Regional clusterforum in EcoparkHartbergPhotos: Entwicklungs-förderungsverband in theHartberg district

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


37

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

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

Location: administrative district ofKirchdorf an der Krems, UpperAustriaThose involved:staff of the district administrationFunding:State of Upper Austria – ReferatBildung und Personalentwicklung;Upper Austrian Academy forEnvironment and NatureFacilitation and guidance:SPES Akademie, Schlierbach Project duration:autumn 2002 to autumn 2004 Methoden:lectures, study groups

Sustainable administrationin Kirchdorf/Krems

Motives ■ Regional Agenda 21in the Kirchdorf districtas a stimulus for thedistrict administrationto follow on with aprocess of internaldevelopment ■ Strengthening thelinks between the staffof the district adminis-tration and theircustomers (the popula-tion of the district)

Goal■ Developing an over-all approach for thedistrict administrationwith all staff taking part;the practical relevanceof sustainable develop-ment to daily routine inover-the-counter deal-ings with the public(“What can I personallydo?”) was a centralissue.

Sequence of events■ Spreading aware-ness, doing researchAfter preliminary dis-cussions with decision-makers within thedistrict administration,the pilot project “Sus-tainable administration”began with a lecture on“People are whatcounts”. The first aimwas to spread the real-ization that sustainabili-ty is something thatpeople – such as thestaff of the districtadministration – liveand implement. Theparticipants were askedto research the subjecton the internet.

■ Large study groupThe next step was alarge study group toconsider issues such as• How can the districtadministration promote(or hinder) the dis-

The develop-ment conceptis presented


38

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

“Working together hasrevealed how we canstructure our dealings withthe people in the districtwith a view to sustainabilityand in harmony with ourlocal identity.Thetouchstone was that thenew guidelines shouldimprove and facilitate ourwork processes.”

Knut Spelitz, head of thedistrict administration

trict’s developing to-wards sustainability? • Economy – ecology –the social dimension:what are the most im-portant goods, funda-mentals and values thatwe should preserve andguard in our district? • What can the goal“Sustainable develop-ment” mean for (say)the departments con-cerned with equipmentor security? • How can I personallyhelp to promote sus-tainable development? • Where can we collab-orate more effectivelyacross administrativeboundaries? • Model region as re-gards sustainability:which areas should weset an example in?What does that meanin economic, ecologicaland social terms?

■ Working in teamsAfter the large studygroup, eleven depart-mental teams wereformed (grouped byareas of responsibility).Each team defined itsprimary tasks from thepoint of view of sus-tainable administration(What takes up themost time? Where isour responsibilityparticularly heavy?) andthe yardsticks forsuccess (What resultsshow that we aresuccessful?) Each teamspecified three to sixmeasures with which toimplement sustainabilityin the specialized areain question. At a sub-sequent meeting thesemeasures were pre-sented.

Results■ Together the staffdeveloped an overallconcept for the Kirch-dorf district administra-tion – more than 80 %of the roughly 100 stafftook part in the inter-nal process ■ Staff enhancement:teamwork, holisticthinking, expanding theability to organize one’swork, personalitydevelopment etc.;deepening awareness ofthe issue “Sustainabledevelopment”■ Developing a new“sustainable system ofvalues”: guidelines andvalues oriented to-wards sustainabledevelopment, to be putinto practice in dailyroutine

■ Practical example:the district administra-tion staff think overways of structuringtheir workflow, andthus their dealings withthe general public, soas to minimize the totalnumber of journeysneeded to the districtadministration offices.This improves localpeople’s quality of life,contributes to reducingtraffic and CO2 emis-sions – and the districtadministration staff arepleased about thepositive echo from thepublic.

The citizenservice point isopenedPhotos: Kirchdorf districtadministration

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


39

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

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

Location: the communities ofFrastanz (A), Grabs (CH), Mäder(A), Mauren (FL), Schaan (FL) in theRhine valleyThose 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 % localcouncilsProject duration:08/2002 to 08/2004Methods: future workshops, studygroups, drawing competition, publicdiscussions, opinion surveys,network meetings

Mobile communities –Mikro-network Rheintal

Motive ■ Spotlighting theconnexions betweenregional and interre-gional traffic problemsand drafting proposalsfor action within theregion

Goal■ Developing ecologi-cally sound, sociallyacceptable measures toreduce the volume ofcar traffic ■ Optimizing commu-nal transport manage-ment ■ Setting up a cross-border network linkingthe communities in-volved, to pool experi-ence, search togetherfor new solutions andgenerate synergies atthe implementationstage

Sequence of events■ Future Workshopsin the communities Each of the five councilstaking part in the pro-ject invited the popula-tion to a one-dayFuture Workshop, atwhich anyone couldpoint out problems,sketch visions and putwishes on record. Theresulting ideas were de-veloped further in astructured public meet-ing in the communityconcerned, to a pointwhere specific projectstook shape. 14 projectteams were formed:two each in Grabs andMäder, three each inFrastanz and Schaan,and four in Mauren,with a total of 65 indi-viduals taking part.These teams put inmore than 3000 hours’voluntary work on theirrespective projects.

■ Project teammeetingsFor one and a halfyears the 14 teamsworked on their pro-jects, planned measuresand implemented them.To ensure an exchangeof ideas between boththe councils involvedand the individualteams, meetings wereorganized for everyonetaking part in the pro-ject, as well as meetingsspecially for the teamleaders.

■ DrawingcompetitionIn autumn 2003 themayors of the five com-munities in the “Mobilecommunities” micro-network launched adrawing competitionaimed at inducing chil-dren and young peopleto have a go at the“tough nuts” in traffic.

FutureWorkshop inFrastanz (A)


40

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

“Involving severalcommunities and workingacross frontiers hasdefinitely proved its worth:we discovered that verysimilar problems existelsewhere, and thatinteresting solutions havealready beenimplemented.”

One of the five mayors

■ List of demandsaddressed to politi-cians:all 14 project teamscollaborated on a list ofdemands addressed topoliticians, to imple-ment sustainable trans-port systems at region-al level and across bor-ders. The list containsdemands connectedwith: soft mobility, roadsafety, guidelines forcoordinated land useand transport planning,the alternatives to theprivate car, improve-ments to publictransport, spreadingawareness, networks ofpaths/routes for walk-ing and cycling.

■ Winding-up eventOn 9 July 2004 an in-ternational conferencewas held in Grabs, atwhich the projectteams presented theresults of their work,and a list of demands,to politicians atcommunity, regional,interregional and cross-border level.

ResultsExamples of measuresalready implemented orin process of imple-mentation:■ 30 km/h speed limitthroughout built-upareas■ Route for a newcommunity bus service(feasibility study inprogress) ■ Cycle route to linkcommunities (installed)■ Analysis of hazardpoints in road network,plus list of countermea-sures (pedestrian cross-ings, traffic mirrors,road markings, pave-ments)■ Arrangements forschoolchildren to eatlunch at school, thusavoiding extra journeys■ Package of measures“Roads as living space”

■ Mobility DVD“Changing over is fun”as an awareness raiserin connexion with traf-fic, for firms andschools■ A roundabout hasbeen built and the roadlayout changed

Sketch for a proposalto install traffic lightsto meter traffic flow inSchaanwald, producedby participants in theFuture Workshop inMauren (FL)

Future Workshop inSchaan (FL)Photos:Austrian Institutefor Applied Ecology

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


41

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

Many thanks to: Rainer Siegele, Mäder council; Karin Klas, Austrian Institute for Applied Ecology

Traffic calming inHimmelpfortgrund

Backdrop ■ Considerable growthin through traffic in theHimmelpfortgrundneighbourhood, withmore and more cardrivers taking detoursthrough the area ■ Residents complainabout resulting dangeron the roads and aboutthe impact of noise andpollutants.

Goal■ Reorganizing theroad network to calmtraffic effectively in theneighbourhood, withthe residents affectedparticipating as much aspossible.

Sequence of eventsSeveral residents got intouch with the LA 21office in Alsergrund,hoping for their neigh-bourhood to be traffic-calmed. There theywere encouraged togenerate their own so-lution to the problem.Some years earlier aplanner engaged by thedistrict administrationhad failed to find anyarrangement (to dealwith the unsatisfactorysituation on the roads)that met with generalacceptance. Theresidents in questionformed a study group,

contacted more resi-dents and (as a firststep) collected data onthe current situation.With the help of atransport consultantthey then worked outvarious different possi-ble ways of reorganiz-ing traffic. The aim wasto identify an arrange-ment that would godown well in the neigh-bourhood concerned,without shifting theproblem to adjoiningareas. The variantsworked out were pre-sented and discussed ina citizen panel; all theresidents present wereunanimously in favourof one particular pro-posal, which was laterpresented to politiciansfrom the district trafficcommission and a rep-resentative from theChamber of Commercein a workshop and dis-

cussed there. Thetraffic commission thencame to a majoritydecision in favour ofthe solution proposed.In June 2004 the newarrangement was in-stalled provisionally forsix months. After thesuccessful test phase ithas now been madepermanent.

Results■ Reversing the direc-tion of traffic in severalone-way streetseffectively eliminatedthrough traffic, andled to a noticeablereduction in noise andpollutants in the neigh-bourhood.

CelebratingsuccessfulimplementationPhoto: Marc Diebäcker


42

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

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

Location: Vienna, 9th District(Alsergrund) Those involved: ordinary citizens,representatives of the Chamber ofCommerce, administrators andpoliticiansFacilitation and guidance:Lokale Agenda 21 Alsergrund; Martin Forstner, transport consultantFunding: LA 21 AlsergrundProject duration:09/2003 to 06/2004Methoden: study group, citizenpanel, workshop Contact:Marc Diebäcker, Projektleiter LA 21T: +43 (0)1 315 78 76E: [email protected] information:www.agenda21.or.at

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

“Ordinary citizens havejointly worked out asolution for the neighbour-hood that meets withgeneral acceptance –something that trafficplanners and councilemployees had regarded asimpossible some yearsearlier.”

Marc Diebäcker

Initial cue■ Decision to con-struct a second motor-way tunnel throughTauern and Katschberg.

Goal■ Working out envi-ronmental relief mea-sures together with thelocal communities.

Sequence of eventsPlanning the construc-tion of a second tunnelhad begun as long agoas the 1980s, and wasaccompanied by mas-sive resistance from thelocal population rightfrom the start. TheMinistry of Transportfinally gave the greenlight for implementingthe project in 1999. Anopen planning processwas intended to keeplocal people informedthroughout and to givethe local councils

affected an opportunityto take part in planningenvironmental reliefmeasures. During a to-tal of around 60 ses-sions the participantsdrew up proposals forrelief measures and dis-cussed the advantagesand drawbacks of vari-ous measures. Exhibitswere used to throwlight on complicated is-sues and to make theassociated plans clear.Regional fora providedinformation on the cur-rent state of planningto the local population.While parallel develop-ments (see box) seri-ously annoyed peoplein the communitiesconcerned, prolongedclose collaboration inthe planning processgave all those takingpart more insight intothe conflicting interestsinvolved.

Results■ Noise abatementmeasures were workedout jointly■ A joint declarationon implementing envi-ronmental relief mea-sures, specifying thetype, scale and locationof the measures agreed,was signed by the may-ors of almost all thecommunities con-cerned, the Minister ofTransport, the Gover-nors of the provincesof Salzburg andCarinthia, and byrepresentatives ofASFINAG and ÖSAG■ A consultative com-mittee responsible forimplementing the decla-ration was set up.

Open planning process for the 2nd tunnel on the A10 motorway

A study groupmeets inFlachau Photo: ÖSAG


43

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

Many thanks to: Brigitte Peer, office of the environmental ombudsman for Salzburg; Veronika Pfeifenberger, Arbeitskreis für ein lebenswertes Zederhaus;

Alexander Walcher, ÖSAG

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

“For all parties to theprocess a willingness tocompromise was essential.The process is ultimatelycredible only if the reliefmeasures agreed areimplemented without delay– otherwise we would feelthat we had been misusedto spread optimism amonglocal people.”

Veronika Pfeifenberger

During the planning processthe Austrian statute on envi-ronmental impact audits wasamended; the Ministry ofTransport then classified thetunnel project as not requiringan audit. The office of the en-vironmental ombudsman forthe province of Salzburg ap-pealed against this decision tothe Supreme Court, but invain; so no audit was carriedout.

Location: Tauern motorway from Hüttau/Pongau (S) to Seeboden (K) Those involved: representatives of 10communities, the office of the environmentalombudsman for the province of Salzburg,representatives of the provincial governments ofSalzburg and Kärnten, Spirk & Partner, CharteredEngineering Consultants, Salzburg (as thecommunities’ advisor), the ÖSAG (motorwayagency) planning teamFacilitation and guidance: no externalstructuringFunding: ASFINAGProject duration: 08/1999 to 08/2004Methods: local study groups, regionalinformation fora Contacts: Alexander Walcher, project manag-er and head of planning department, ÖSAG-Vien-na, T: +43 (0)1 53134-14445, E: [email protected]; Veronika Pfeifenberger, Verein fürein lebenswertes Zederhaus, T: +43 (0)6641403062, E: [email protected] Further information: www.partizipation.at

Location: Vienna Those involved: representatives ofthe city administration, environmentalorganizations, external consultantsand 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 forWaste Management Plan and SEA/ Cityof Vienna – departments 48 and 22 Project duration: preparation phase02/1999 to 06/1999; implementationphase 06/1999 to 10/2001 Methode: Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment Round Table

SEA* of the Vienna Waste Management Plan

Backdrop■ Steadily increasingvolume of waste, capac-ity bottlenecks in theexisting waste treat-ment facilities in Vienna ■ Key issue: doesVienna need additionalwaste treatment capaci-ty, or is it sufficient todo more in the fields ofprevention and recy-cling?

Goal■ Drawing-up a Viennawaste managementplan, taking environ-mental aspects intoaccount and with therelevant lobbies partici-pating.

Sequence of events■ PreparationIn the preparatoryphase the organization-al and financial frame-work for the SEA wasset up, the goal of theprocess defined and theSEA team brought to-gether. The SEA for theVienna waste manage-ment plan was a teamprocess which the cityadministration, environ-mental organizationsand external expertscollaborated on. Allthose taking part hadan equal say in produc-ing the Vienna wastemanagement plan.

■ Drawing-up thewaste managementplanThe SEA team’s firstjob was to define theaims of the Viennawaste managementplan; these included en-vironmental aims suchas reducing emissions.Next the current situa-tion was surveyed andthe unsolved problemsin Vienna’s wastemanagement werediscussed. Then theparticipants worked outpossible ways of achiev-ing the aims initially de-fined. The alternativesconsidered ranged fromnew waste treatmentfacilities to waste pre-vention measures; theywere assessed in termsof their impact on theenvironment, theeconomy and society.After several rounds offine-tuning proposals,

the SEA team reached abroad consensus aboutthe best package (in theteam’s view) for Vien-na’s waste management.The result, the Viennawaste managementplan, was documentedin the environmentalreport and recom-mended to the citycouncil for adoption.While the plan’s recom-mendations were notlegally binding, the SEAteam identified verystrongly with its con-tent.

Key postulatesfor the SEA


4

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

*) Strategic environmental assessment

“The big plusses were thatpoints of view were listenedto and discussed, not justblithely ignored, thatexperience was pooled,which meant that one’sown horizon was widened,and that people learntfrom one another.”

A participant

The sequence of events

PRELIMI-NARYPHASE Decision tocarry out anSEA to producethe wastemanagementplan for Vienna

PREPARA-TORY PHASE Planning thecourse of theprocess withpublic parti-cipation

■ AdoptionThe city council adopt-ed the Vienna wastemanagement plan by aclear majority. The rel-evant decision-makershave welcomed theplan’s recommenda-tions and set aboutimplementing them.

■ ImplementationAfter adoption, theSEA’s results wereincorporated in thestatutory waste man-agement concept forVienna. As soon as theSEA had been complet-

ed, work began onimplementing the initialrecommendations(setting up a strategicplanning group onwaste prevention,search for suitable sitesfor new waste treat-ment facilities). Later anenvironmental impactassessment was per-formed for the new in-cineration plant. Thefact that an SEA hadbeen carried out madethis assessment muchmore straightforward.The approval proce-dure for the new bio-

gas plant has beencompleted successfully.A special monitoringgroup is supervising theimplementation of theresults and monitoringthe actual effects of thewaste managementconcept on the en-vironment.

Results■ Vienna waste man-agement plan: catalogueof measures to preventwaste, to recycle wasteand to treat waste invarious types of facility.

SEA team withthe overallresults in thebackgroundPhotos: Florian Gerlich

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


45

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

Many thanks to: Sonja Sciri, City of Vienna, department 22

OPERATIVE PHASE• Define aims• Analyse currentsituation• Develop alternatives• Analyse effects of thesealternatives• Produce environmentalreport

ADOPTION PHASEAdoption of Vienna wastemanagement plan by thecity council

IMPLEMENTATIONPHASEMonitoring implemen-tation of the variousmeasures involved

Approach■ Participation in theEQUAL project“Different origins –shared future” in orderto improve intercultur-al life in the community■ Developing social in-tegration further (workon this had started inKrems in the 1990s)

Goal■ Overall approach tosocial integration, pluspackage of measures,both to be developedby people in Krems(including migrants),politicians, administra-tors and representa-tives of employers’ andemployees’ organiza-tions, social facilitiesand clubs

Sequence of eventsThe town council votedin favour of taking partin the project “Differ-ent origins – sharedfuture”. The first stepwas to analyse thecurrent state of playand identify possibleways in which migrantsin Krems might be dis-advantaged. At a publickick-off meeting thefindings were presentedand everyone interest-ed was invited to take

part. A total of around100 people helped todevelop the overallapproach and workedout specific proposalsfor areas such as ad-ministration, education,culture, health andemployment in sixstudy groups withbetween ten and 25members. The outputfrom these studygroups was mergedinto a single set of prin-ciples, which the coun-cil formally adopted(with all the groups onthe council in favour).

Initialimplementation ■ An interculturalspecialist was taken onfor the nursery schoolsector■ A post specially forsocial integration wascreated in the townadministration

■ An 18-month courseon intercultural educa-tion was held■ Intercultural get-to-gethers took place invarious institutions, fornatives of Krems andmigrants to get toknow these institutionsbetter■ Prototype intercul-tural parties (one eachfor adults and children)took place■ A migrants’ liaisoncommittee was formed,as a link between thetown administrationand migrants ■ An interculturalmeeting-place wasestablished in theLerchenfeld neighbour-hood ■ Within the regionalhospital a network ofinterpreters was set up

Participants inthe course oninterculturaleducationPhoto: Maria Zwicklhuber


46

Cas

e hi

sto

ries

Many thanks to: Maria Zwicklhuber and Azem Olcay, Interkulturelles Zentrum Vienna; Sandra Kern, town councillor; Simone Göls, social integrationofficer in Krems; Brigitte Halbmayr, Institute of Conflict Research Vienna

Different origins – shared future

Location: Krems/Donau, NÖ Those involved: residents of Krems,representatives of political parties, ofthe town council, employers’ andemployees’ organizations, socialfacilities and clubs Funding: Interkulturelles ZentrumVienna, Institute of Conflict ResearchVienna Facilitation and guidance:Interkulturelles Zentrum Wien, Institut für Konfliktforschung WienProject duration: 12/2002 to 08/2005Methods: informatory meeting, studygroups Contact: Sandra Kern, town council-lor, T: +43 (0)699 12207944,E: [email protected] information:www.krems.at

“The lengthy process ofdiscussion has made memuch more sensitive in myperception of cross-culturalinteraction.”

Helma Spannagl-Schmoll,a participant


47

Pers

pect

ives

Public participation is coopera-tion and dialoguePromoting public participation is akey element in up-to-date thinkingabout politics and administration.Good governance involves takingespecial care in future that newforms of collaboration betweenpoliticians, administrators, ordinarycitizens, business and NGOs(➔Glossary) take shape. This appliesat all levels, from specific projects viaplans and programs to the develop-ment of strategy and policy at themost general level.

Encouraging and motivatingpeople to take partDemocratic participation involves asmany individuals and sectors of thepopulation as possible having a say inhow living space and living conditionsare managed. This goes beyond mak-ing use of statutory rights, such asvoting in elections or signing a peti-tion, and embraces a wide range ofapplications (as the examples from allover Austria reveal). Participation isan expression of voluntary civic com-mitment. The task of politicians andadministrators is to promote andfacilitate participation – as somethingthat reinforces the social fabric and aculture of democracy, and encour-ages the development of a sense ofresponsibility for the community.

Recognizing and supportingparticipation Over and above their jobs and dailyduties, individuals are active in anynumber of projects and organiza-tions: people from all sectors of so-ciety, youngsters, senior citizens,women and men, involved in fieldssuch as the environment, welfare,health or culture. Public participation,voluntary work and commitmentpresuppose interest, motivation and awillingness to “get down to it” onthe part of individuals. At the sametime, committed individuals needstructures that provide purchase fortheir commitment, and opportunities

Public participation –a vital task in future, too

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

“It isn‘t new structures ormodels that make thefuture come alive, butpeople – ith their skills,ideas and visions.”

Ambros Pree*

*) OÖ. Technologie- und Marketinggesellschaft


48

Pers

pect

ives

to shape the future. Settings and meet-ing- points are important where exper-iments are feasible, where democraticparticipation can be tried out andwhere a group of people can learntogether. Specialists to assist, facilitateand encourage are needed here aswell. People expect commitment ofthis kind to pay, too, in the sense thatthey share successes and enjoy work-ing together.

From private interests to thepublic interestHow committed someone is dependscrucially on his or her personal moti-vation. One learns to understandother people’s standpoints by dis-cussing things with them and in thegive and take of debate. Individualdemands and special interests can bemerged into a harmonious whole ofservice to everyone – yielding surplusvalue that may have been unimaginablepreviously. And this process can givebirth to a network of personal rela-tionships that permanently reinforcethe social fabric of a neighbourhood ora community, too.

Small units and the globalperspectiveParticipation starts small-scale – inpeople’s immediate surroundings, in aneighbourhood, in the community:here the individuals affected can grasphow decisions are reached, and herepeople can detect what effect theirown activities have. Direct feedbackand visible success turn commitmentto the public interest into a source ofpersonal satisfaction. If opportunitiesto participate at a local or regionallevel are enhanced, people are morelikely to want to participate. This actsas a counterweight to the seeminglyineluctable progress of globalization:small units are strengthened, withoutthe overall perspective being lost. Evenquite small initiatives can achieve a lot,just as decisions each of us takes everyday can and do have effects beyondour own community.

Public participation – a vital task in future, too


49

Pers

pect

ives

From “administering” to“sharing in decisions“The goal is to construct a mutuallysupportive partnership in whichpoliticians, administrators, ordinarycitizens and lobbyists from businessand NGOs collaborate and everyonebenefits. For this we need administra-tors with a new attitude toward thegeneral public: “We are all in thistogether” (i.e. on the same level).What also needs to be clarified: howelected bodies such as the localcouncil and the general public shouldcollaborate. In nocircumstances are theresponsibilities of electedrepresentatives watereddown: they remain thedecisionmakers andresponsible for imple-menting their decisionstogether with everyonetaking part. Rather,participation is a way ofimproving both the qualityof decisions and people’swillingness to accept

them. That works only if participa-tion is not just tolerated as window-dressing, and if a climate of trust andsupport develops. The politicalprocess should be structured – in adialogue with all those affectedand/or interested – so that projectsworked out together are implement-ed, and then do in fact improve thequality of the local environment, ofthe economic location and of sociallife.

Public participation – a vital task in future, too

“Many little people doingmany little things in manylittle places can cahangethe face of the world.”

African proverb

Opening


50

Aid

s to

impl

emen

tati

on

Public participation can benefiteveryone involved.They all gainfrom participation processes,because ...

■ exchanging perspectives and tack-ling issues together make it possibleto reconcile diverging interests;

■ innovative ideas and new solutionsto the problems on hand are born;

■ willingness to engage in dialogueand find a consensus improves rela-tions with the others taking part;

■ personal relationships can be estab-lished, facilitating future contacts;

■ from the arguments and perspec-tives provided by others everyonecan fill in gaps in their knowledge;

■ “multiplied“ knowledge is a betterbasis for decisions;

■ people’s competence in negotiatingis improved for the future;

■ each individual can gain recognitionand sympathy, whether as a deci-sion- maker, citizen, applicant forproject approval, etc.

As a decision-maker in politicsyou can benefit further from aparticipation process, because ...

■ communication and the exchange ofinformation with ordinary citizensand lobbyists are improved;

■ you promote a culture of collabora-tion and dialogue with ordinarycitizens, lobbyists and common-interest groups, thus strengtheningdemocracy at the local level;

■ you obtain a clearer picture of theinterests and needs of various seg-ments of the population;

■ you can reduce the pressure ofexpectations and the amount ofbackstairs intrigue by openly involv-ing the various lobbies in theprocess;

■ you can integrate so-called “fringegroups“ in the community by meansof a participation process;

■ you can strengthen people’s confi-dence in political decision-making;

■ political decisions have moreauthority if made on the basis of aparticipation 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 communityor region (again);

■ individual council responsibilitiesmay even be taken over by activecitizens who organize themselves.

Benefits of public participation –Arguments for various groups of stakeholders


51

Aid

to

impl

emen

tati

on

As an administrator you benefitfrom a participation process,because ...

■ subsequent administrativeprocesses can often be completedsooner (since there are fewerobjections and comments duringthe process and fewer complaintsafterwards), so your work is madeeasier;

■ you learn of doubts and reserva-tions about a project or plan at anearly stage, and can thus deal withthese actively;

■ you can reduce the pressure ofexpectations and the amount ofbackstairs intrigue by openlyinvolving the various lobbies in theprocess;

■ you thus promote a culture ofcooperation and dialogue withordinary citizens, lobbyists andcommon-interest groups, whichstrengthens democracy at thelocal level;

■ you obtain a clearer picture of theinterests and needs of various seg-ments of the population;

■ involving those interested and/oraffected makes it easier to weighup and reconcile diverging inter-ests;

■ individual responsibilities mayeven be taken over by active citi-zens who organize themselves;

■ you can strengthen confidence inwhat the administration does.

As a citizen or member of acitizens’ initiative you benefitfrom a participation process,because ...

■ you can table your own values,ideas and interests and realizethem;

■ you can have a direct say in deci-sions affecting your own quality oflife;

■ you have (better) access to rele-vant information;

■ you gain more insight into deci-sion- making processes and learnhow politics and administrationwork;

■ self-organization opens up newfields of activity and possibilities ofeffective action;

■ you can harvest recognition andesteem for your commitment andyour knowledge as an “expert onthe spot“.


“It all about achieving goalsthat one person in isolationwould not have reached.”

Fritz Ammer*

*) SPES Akademie, Upper Austria


52

Aid

s to

impl

emen

tati

on

As a lobbyist or representative ofa common-interest group youbenefit from a participationprocess, because ...

■ you can table your own values,ideas and interests and realizethem;

■ you can give your organizationmore weight;

■ you gain more insight into decision-making processes;

■ a participation process improvesthe chances of tabling interests andpoints of view that do not oftenreceive attention;

■ you have (better) access to relevantinformation;

■ you can demonstrate both to mem-bers of your organization and tothe general public that your organi-zation is competent and acts on itsprinciples;

■ trust can develop as a basis forfuture collaboration.

As an applicant for projectapproval you benefit from aparticipation process, too,because ...

■ the outcomes of participationprocesses are usually widely accept-ed, so the solutions involved “keepbetter”;

■ projects tend to get implementedsooner, because there are fewercomplaints and court cases afterapproval has been granted;

■ thus legal certainty is improved andentrepreneurial risk is reduced;

■ you can obtain more understanding– e.g. for your firm’s businessrequirements;

■ you can embed your firm moresolidly in the community/region;

■ you can create an atmosphere oftrust as a basis for future collabora-tion, and also strengthen trust inyour firm’s products and services;

■ you can boost the image of yourfirm.



53

Aid

to

impl

emen

tati

on

Launchingparticipation processs

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

✓

InformationHave you utilized all the relevant sources (e.g. council offices, citizens’ guidance bureau, news-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 (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-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 assessment act, the statutes on land use or water and waterways)?Have all stakeholders been contacted and informed (specially important in the case of mandatorypublic participation!)? Have you (as a stakeholder) obtained information about any relevant deadlines from the authorities?Has anyone looked at the possibility of an informal process supplementing and enhancing amandatory participation process?

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

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

YES NO

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

� � �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�


54

Aid

s to

impl

emen

tati

on

Preparing participation processes

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

✓

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

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

*) Legend: see p. 55

I C DIx x x

x x

x x x

x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x

x x

x x x

x

x

x x x

(x) x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

*)

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�


55

Aid

to

impl

emen

tati

on

Implementingparticipation processes

What aspects need consideration in connection with implementing participationprocesses largely depends on which method is selected, how the process is designed andwhether 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:

✓

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

*) 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

I C DI

x x x

x

x

x

x x

x

x x x

x x x

(x) (x) x

x x x

x

x

ParticipantsAre the roles of all those taking part clear (e.g. who represents which group and with what powers)? Is it ensured that the same people will take part throughout? If not, is it ensured that subsequentnewcomers will be integrated properly?

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

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

Results Have all the participants agreed to present the results as a collective achievement? Are structures established to make it possible to watch over and understand how the results areimplemented?

*)

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�


56

Aid

s to

impl

emen

tati

on

Public relationsin participation processes

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

✓

Information and media activities � Is enough money for public-relations activities on hand? � Is it clear who is responsible for information and media activities? � Is it clear what goal public-relations activities (initial information about the project, getting

people to participate, ongoing reporting etc.) are intended to achieve, and what forms ofinformation are most suitable for the specific task?

� Is it clear which target groups (young people, immigrants etc.) are to be addressed and whichmessage is most suitable for this?

� Are there ways of delivering information to the population (official circular, newsletter, mailing,contributions on TV or on the radio, advertisements in newspapers etc.)?

� Are there ways of making information available (public access to plans, exhibition, informatorymeeting, website, hotline, call-in phone service, advice surgery etc.)?

� Can ordinary citizens express their point of view about the project (suggestions box,eMail address, hotline, public discussion etc.)? Is it clear what happens to the points of viewexpressed/questions raised?

� Will all suitable media (daily newspapers, local weeklies, specialized periodicals, club media,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 thepress and the general public?

� Have all the participants jointly laid down rules for dealing with the press and the general public(answering enquiries, press releases, organizing press conferences etc.)?

� Is it clear what information about the participation process is to be treated as confidential andwhat 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”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?

YES NO

�

�

�

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

� �

�


57

Aid

to

impl

emen

tati

on

Funding participation processesWhere 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 21processesFunding arrangements forconducting Local Agenda21 processes vary fromcountry to country andmay be operative at nation-al, regional or communitylevel. The best thing to dois to ask the national co-ordination office in yourcountry for details.

■ Official partners forcommon-interestgroupsEach country has its ownfunding strategies forinvolving a variety of com-mon-interest groups. Youshould therefore contactthe departments con-cerned with your particularissue at national, regionalor community level.

■ EU programmes

e.g. ERDF http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/prord/prord_en.htmThe European RegionalDevelopment Fund (ERDF)supports regional develop-ment, enhanced competi-tiveness and territorialcooperation.

e.g. LEADER+http://www.leader-austria.at,http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/ Funding mechanism fordeveloping rural areas assustainable places to live,work and do business in.

e.g. LIFE+http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/news/futureoflife.htmpromotes environmentalrelief and conservationprojects. Funding is avail-able primarily for projectsaimed at conserving andrenaturizing habitats.

e.g. EUROPE FORCITIZENShttp://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/index_en.htmlintends to encourage coop-eration between citizensand their organisationsfrom different countries tobridge the gap between cit-izens and the EU. Financialinstruments promoteactive European citizenship.

e.g. YOUTH INACTIONhttp://ec.europa.eu/youth/index_en.html intends to develop solidari-ty among young people andto increase their sense ofinitiative, creativenessandentrepreneurial spirit.

■ In CEE countries Institutions such as the fol-lowing exist specifically tofund participation process-es in CEE countries:

The REC, Regional Envi-ronmental Center forCentral and EasternEurope (Szentendre, Hun-gary) http://www.rec.org/,conducts awareness-raisingand training projects,makes grants to NGO’sand supports networkactivities in CEE countries,all within the framework ofits public participation pro-gramme.

The EnvironmentalPartnership http://www.environmentalpartnership.org/is a line-up of six institu-tions in Bulgaria, the CzechRepublic, Hungary, Poland,Romania and Slovakia andis focussed on supportingpublic participationprocesses. Amongst otherthings, it provides technicalsupport and facilitates thetransfer of know-how.

This is not an exhaustivelist of funding and supportmechanisms.You should askthe relevant institutions inyour region/country formore information abouthow to fund your participa-tion process!


58

Met

hods

in c

om

mo

n us

e

Methods

Below you will find an overview of various methods that have proved theirworth. A more detailed description is to be found on www.partizipation.at(for instance). To select the most suitable method for your particularparticipation process, consult your facilitator.

There are numerous methods available for conducting public participation.An appropriate method can contribute significantly to • conducting participation processes in a structured and efficient way,• making them interesting and avoiding monotony,• tracking down new solutions “off the beaten track“.

Legend

Stage of publicparticipationInformationConsultationDecision-influencing

Duration (implementa-tion, without preparationphase!)� 1 day to at most

1 week� several weeks�� several months

Number of participants☺ up to about

15 persons☺☺ roughly 15 to

30 persons ☺☺☺ also suitable for

large groups ofparticipants

In an activating opin-ion survey ordinarycitizens are askedabout their views andattitudes; at the sametime they are encour-aged to stand up fortheir interests and tojoin in working outimprovements to thearea where they live.

Suitable for• investigating the interestsand needs of people livingin a particular area • promoting the self-deter-mined involvement ofordinary citizens

Sequence of events• Trained interviewers pollresidents of the area inquestion• The survey results areevaluated• Common-interest oraction groups form

Participantsinterested citizens

Activating opinion surveyConsultation Duration: � to �� Numbers involved ☺☺☺

A citizen panel pro-vides a way of inform-ing those interestedand/or affected abouta project and of dis-cussing the variousaspects of the projectin public.

Suitable for• informing the public abouta project or plan at com-munity level if it is intendedto gather points of viewand suggestions from ordi-nary citizens

Sequence of events• Information about theproject or plan is presentedto the public • This is followed by discus-sion (possibly by work insmall groups)

ParticipantsInterested citizens, lobby-ists, representatives ofcommon-interest groups,politicians, administra-tors, possibly experts

Citizen panelInformation, Consultation Duration: � Numbers involved ☺☺☺


59

Mth

ods

in c

om

mo

n us

e

Methods

Internet fora are on-line discussionplatforms which offerordinary citizens away of expressingviews on and dis-cussing a particularissue with others.

Suitable for• as an additional channel ofinformation and communi-cation for ordinary citizens,with no restrictions ontime or place• sounding out publicopinion on a particularissue or project

Sequence of events• an internet forum on aparticular issue is set up• internet users input theirviews on-line and can com-ment on contributionsfrom others

Participantsinterested citizens withaccess to the internet

Internet forumConsultation Duration: � to �� Numbers involved ☺☺☺

In a consensus confer-ence mixed-composi-tion groups of select-ed citizens work outan answer to a politi-cally or socially con-troversial question indirect dialogue withexperts.

Suitable for• handling explosive issues,where interested non-experts are supported byexperts• sounding out public opin-ion on a particular question

Sequence of events• Roughly ten to 30 inter-ested citizens are selected • Those selected familiarizethemselves with the issue(by means of informatorymaterial, such as state-ments, background reports,newspaper cuttings etc.)• A three-day conference isheld: the experts involvedcover the subject from allangles, the participantsquestion the experts anddiscuss the issue in depth,before composing a written

report detailing the consen-sus achieved (points ofview, recommendations);this report is then present-ed to the decision-makers(politicians)

Participantsselected citizens, experts,politicians, administrators

Consensus conferenceConsultation, decision-influencing Duration: � Numbers involved ☺ to ☺☺☺

Mediation is a volun-tary, clearly structuredprocess in whichthose involved in aconflict search for apermanent solutiontogether and profes-sional mediators sup-port them in this.

Suitable for• in the case of latent oropen conflicts connectedwith specific planning pro-cedures and problems• to help the parties to aconflict (provided that theywant to resolve the conflictconsensually)

Sequence of events –4 phases:• Initiating the process:convincing all the parties toa conflict that mediationwould be helpful, searchingfor suitable mediators• Preparation: analysing theconflict in one-to-one ses-sions, defining exactly whowill take part, drawing up aworking agreement specify-ing procedure, goal, con-tent etc. of the mediationprocess

• Implementation: showingup the diverging interestsand needs, gathering miss-ing information, trackingdown solutions and reach-ing a decision • Final agreement: drawingup a written mediationcontract about the resultsachieved and how they areto be implemented

Participantscitizens affected, lobbyists,representatives of common-interest groups, politicians, administrators

MediationDecision-inîuencing Duration: �� to �� Numbers involved ☺ to ☺☺☺


60

Met

hods

in c

om

mo

n us

e

Methods

At an open space con-ference there is adominant issue ortopic, but no specifiedspeakers or preparedstudy groups. The par-ticipants themselvesdecide spontaneouslywho wants to workon which topics forhow long.

Suitable for• in cases where a largenumber of participants areto tackle complex issues • as a way of kicking off aproject that is intended tostart by gathering ideasfrom a fair number ofpeople

Sequence of events • the dominant issue is presented and interestingquestions it raises are collected• these questions are tack-led in small groups of con-stantly changing composi-tion; minutes are taken ineach group • all the minutes taken aresubsequently published

Participantscitizens affected, lobbyists,representatives ofcommon-interest groups,politicians, administrators

Open space conferenceConsultation, decision-influencing Duration: � Numbers involved ☺☺☺

In a citizen jury unor-ganized citizens select-ed at random draw upa ”citizens’ assess-ment” in response toa specific question,based on their ownexperience and know-ledge. In specializedareas they receiveassistance fromexperts.

Suitable for• planning assignments atlocal and regional level,for developing overallconcepts• where it is important thatas many segments of thepopulation as possible arerepresented in balancedproportions • where stakeholders’everyday experience andexperts’ specialized know-ledge are both needed

Sequence of events• around 25 citizens areselected at random and dis-engaged from their routineobligations (loss of incomeis made up, child-care facilities are organized for parents) • all those taking part areinformed in detail aboutthe project; they haveopportunities to talk tostakeholders, specialists,the authorities etc.; theymay inspect the site of theproject

• they discuss and workthrough the various aspectsof the project in smallgroups which are repeated-ly reshuffled• the results obtained arewritten up in the form of a”citizens’ assessment” to bepresented to the organiza-tion that has commissionedthe process

Participantsselected citizens, experts

Citizen juryDecision-influencing Duration: � Numbers involved ☺☺ to ☺☺☺

At a Round Tablestakeholders’ repre-sentatives discussa factual issuedemocratically andattempt to find a solu-tion acceptable toeveryone.

Suitable for• resolving controversialissues with people repre-senting conflicting interests • where conflicts arelooming up

Sequence of eventsThere is no standardizedprocedure for RoundTables. For them to workproperly it is important toprovide an impartial mod-erator, to take minutes ofthe discussion and toensure that each group ofstakeholders is representedby the same number ofpersons entitled to vote,regardless of its actual(political) strength

Participantsstakeholders’ representa-tives, experts, politiciansand administrators

Round TableDecision-influencing Duration: � to �� Numbers involved ☺☺ to ☺☺☺


61

Mth

ods

in c

om

mo

n us

e

Methods

This is a special formof Strategic Environ-mental Assessment(�Glossary) in whichstakeholders areactively involved indrawing-up a programor strategy (e.g. wastemanagement plan,transport strategy)together with adminis-trators and externalexperts.

Suitable for• drawing-up programs andstrategies that do justice tothe environment

Sequence of events• the goals of the programor strategy are defined • the current situation in theplanning area is described• the scope of investigationis defined• alternative ways of reach-ing the goals defined aredeveloped• the various alternativesare analysed and assessedas regards their environ-mental impact• the findings are docu-mented in a the environ-mental report

Participantsstakeholders’ representa-tives, experts, politiciansand administrators

Strategic Environmental Assessment Round TableDecision-influencing Duration: �� Numbers involved ☺ to ☺☺

In a Future Workshopthe participants arestimulated by anatmosphere designedto promote creativity,so as to develop imag-inative, unconventionalsolutions to currentproblems.

Suitable for• where visions are to bedeveloped, e.g. in producingmission statements, develop-ment scenarios, projectsto shape the future etc.

Sequence of events –3 phases:• Criticism phase: analysingthe current situation andidentifying the problems• Fantasy phase: developingideas and suggestions –these can perfectly well beutopian, factual constraintsare ignored at this stage• ”Back to reality” phase:investigating how these suggestions can be made capable of implementation and how implementation could function

ParticipantsCitizens, stakeholders’representatives, possiblyexperts, politicians andadministrators

Future WorkshopDecision-influencing Duration: � Numbers involved ☺ to ☺☺

At a Future Confer-ence hand-picked par-ticipants representingall stakeholders workout plans of actionand packages forfuture projects; thesequence of events isfixed in advance.

Suitable for• long-term planning proce-dures and projects at com-munity level or in organiza-tions • questions concerned withthe future

Sequence of events• thinking over the past andcurrent developments• sketching blueprints forthe future, reaching a con-sensus on which blueprintto adopt, planning specificmeasures

Participantsordinary citizens, stake-holders’ representatives,experts, politicians andadministrators

Future ConferenceDecision-influencing Duration: � Numbers involved ☺☺☺


62

Glo

ssar

y

Actors / agentsIndividuals or represen-tatives of institutionsactively taking part in thecourse of events.

Agenda 21, LocalAgenda 21, RegionalAgenda 21Comprehensive world-wide program of actionfor sustainable develop-ment in the 21st century(agenda: Latin for “whatneeds doing“). The keyissue is striking a balancebetween economic,social and ecologicalrequirements, includingreducing the discrepan-cies between rich andpoor countries. The ideais for ordinary citizens,politicians, administra-tors and entrepreneursto work out and imple-ment strategies fordeveloping their areasustainably at the localor regional level (LocalAgenda 21, RegionalAgenda 21).

Environmentalimpact assessment The Austrian environ-mental impact assess-ment act (UVP-G) pre-scribes an environmentalaudit with public partici-pation for certain typesof projects which areexpected to have a con-siderable impact on theenvironment.

Facilitators /moderators Persons qualified bytheir professional train-ing, their practical expe-rience and their impar-tiality (i.e. they are underthe same obligations toall the stakeholders) toorganize and steer a par-ticipation process. Theyassist the participants inworking out possiblesolutions, but leave alldecisions to them.

NGO Non-GovernmentalOrganization. NGOs areorganizations indepen-dent of governmentswho (in most cases) areactive in the public inter-est. NGOs work in theenvironmental or socialfield; Greenpeace,Caritas and MSF areexamples.

ParticipantsPersons who take part ina participation process,either as private individ-uals or as representa-tives of groups of stake-holders.

Participation process Sequence of steps inwhich decision-makersand those interested in /affected by a plan orproject collaborate; itcan range from anexchange of informationall the way to activeinvolvement in shapingcommunal life.

Party status In a statutory officialprocedure party statusentitles one to raiseobjections, to inspectofficial documents, toput forward one’s pointof view, to appeal etc.; itis accorded to citizensand legal entities whosatisfy the criteria laiddown in the relevantprovisions (in Austria:the provisions of theAVG (statute on admin-istrative procedure) andof the various materialstatutes, such as thatgoverning environmentalimpact assessments).

Policies Policies are relativelylong-term strategic deci-sions by a government,parliament or the toplevel of the administra-tion, embodied in state-ments of principle,strategies or missionstatements, such as theAustrian Strategy forSustainable Develop-ment, the Austrian Cli-mate Strategy or theNational Action Plan forEmployment.

StakeholdersAll those whose inter-ests may be affected by aproject (plan, program,policy, legal transaction),both individuals andgroups, e.g. neighbours,firms, clubs, politicians,administrators, etc.

Strategic environ-mental assessment(SEA) Strategic environmentalassessment is a tool fortaking environmentalaspects into account indefining policies, plansand programs, on a levelwith social and econom-ic aspects. In contrast toenvironmental impactassessments, the focushere is not on individualprojects but on resolvingissues of principle in theplanning field with publicparticipation.

Sustainabledevelopment Refers to a form ofdevelopment that meetsthe needs of the presentgeneration without com-promising the ability offuture generations tomeet their own needs.The concept of sustain-able development orsustainability involvesboth conserving theenvironment andresources long-term andachieving economicprosperity and social jus-tice.

Glossary


63

Lit

erat

ure

and

Web

site

s

Literature, websites

Literature

ALEXANDER, Nadja(2003): Global Trends inMediation, CologneFocuses on mediation froma comparative perspective,covers both common lawand civil law jurisdictions,concentrates on the diver-sity of legal cultures andsystems on four continentsand provides a rich analysisof mediation models, stan-dards and practices.

BEIERLE, Thomas C.;CAYFORD, Jerry (2002):Democracy in Practice:Public Participation inEnvironmental Deci-sions, Washington, DC Extensive empirical studies(data from 239 cases)examine what to expectfrom public participationand how participationprocesses can be mademore effective.

CREIGHTON, James L.(2005): The Public Par-ticipation Handbook:Making Better Deci-sions Through CitizenInvolvement, San FranciscoIs a toolkit for designingand facilitating public par-ticipation in environmentaland public policy decisionmaking, featuring practicaladvice, checklists, work-sheets, and illustrativeexamples.

DEPOE, Stephen P.;DELICATH, John W.;AEPLI ELSENBEER, Marie-France (2004):

Communication andPublic Participation inEnvironmental DecisionMaking (Communica-tion Studies), New YorkCommunication practicesof various stakeholders in avariety of environmentaldecision-making contextsare explored, aligned bycase studies.

ELLIOTT, Janice;HEESTERBEEK, Sara;LUKENSMEYER, CarolynJ.; SLOCUM, Nikki (2005): Participatory MethodsToolkit.A practitioner’smanual.Joint publication of theKing Baudouin Foundationand the Flemish Institutefor Science and TechnologyAssessment (viWTA).Download:http://www.viwta.be/files/30890_ToolkitENGdef.pdf

HERRMAN, Margaret S.(2006): The BlackwellHandbook of Mediation.Bridging theory, research,and practice. New YorkTakes an interdisciplinaryapproach to mediation,presents different perspec-tives of experts in the field,and shows which interven-tion techniques might workwhen, how and why.

OBERTHÜR, Sebastian;BUCK, Matthias; MÜLLER,Sebastian; PFAHL, Stefanie;TARASOFSKY, Richard G.;WERKSMAN, Jacob;PALMER, Alice (2003):Participation of Non-Governmental Organi-

sations in InternationalEnvironmental Cooper-ation. Legal Basis andPractical Experience,Berlin Systematic analysis ofthe relationship betweenthe legal basis and the prac-tical influence of NGO’s indifferent areas of interna-tional environmental coop-eration; background ofNGO’s, constraints, casestudies, options for enhanc-ing the role of NGO’s.

PFEFFERKORN, Wolfgang;GOLOBIC, Mojca; ZAUGGSTERN, Marc; BUCHECK-ER, Matthias (2006): NewForms of Decision Mak-ing, Vienna–Ljubljana–Zürich– Schaan Concerned with theques-tion which new forms ofdecision-making are themost promising withregard to sustainable devel-opment when it comes tonegotiating regional plan-ning demands.

SCHMIDT, Michael; JOAO,Elsa; ALBRECHT, Eike(2005): ImplementingStrategic Environmen-tal Assessment,Berlin–Heidelberg Handbook describing theimplementation of SEA in18 countries around theworld, with analysis of dif-ferent SEA methodologies,discussion on best practice,capacity building and thefuture of SEA.

Websites

www.partizipation.atBasic information, sugges-tions for further reading,details of forthcomingevents, worksheets andcase histories of participa-tion and of participationprocesses in Central andEastern Europe

www.wegweiser-buergergesellschaft.dePractical aids, backgroundinformation, details offorthcoming events, detailsof specialized literature,grants and useful organiza-tions in connexion withcivic activity

www.toolkitparticipa-tion.nlDetailed descriptions ofcase histories from all overthe world, tools for citizenparticipation, forum fordiscussions, links andbrochures associated withlocal governance

www.resolv.orgPublic policy dispute reso-lution organization in theUS, tools and techniques ofconsensus building, cases ofenvironmental and publicpolicy issues, links and pro-ject list

www.communityplan-ning.net Basic information aboutlocal government, methods,scenarios, case studies,checklists, broad range ofcontacts and websites


64

Kerstin Arbter Expert on strategic environmentalassessment and participation, facilitator,managing director of Büro Arbter –Technisches Büro für [email protected]

Martina Handler Responsible for the participation issueat ÖGUT; political scientist and media-tor, in charge of the Public Participa-tion Manual project [email protected]

Elisabeth Purker Urban and regional planner; scientificassistant on the participation issue atÖGUT (until 03/2006) [email protected]

Georg Tappeiner Responsible for the competence areastadt.bau.region at Austrian Institutefor Applied Ecology; developmentplanner, mediator and trainer [email protected]

Rita Trattnigg Expert on sustainable development andparticipation in the Federal Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry, Environment andWater Management, political scientist,facilitator in participation processes [email protected]

Our grateful thanks especially to everyone in the ÖGUTStrategy Group on Participation, aninterdisciplinary group of experts whohelped us write and structure thismanual, for their ongoing contributionsand numerous stimulating ideas: Thomas Alge, ÖkobüroKarolina Begusch-Pfefferkorn, FederalMinistry for Science and ResearchDieter Beisteiner, Federal Ministry of Agri-culture, Forestry, Environment and WaterManagementAndrea Binder-Zehetner, Lokale Agenda21 ViennaJens Dangschat, Vienna University ofTechnologyOliver Frey, Vienna University ofTechnologyHerbert Greisberger, Austrian Society forEnvironment and TechnologyBarbara Hammerl, Joanneum ResearchForschungsgesmbHFelix Heckl, Environment Agency Austria Peter Iwaniewicz, LebensministeriumUlrike Kozeluh, Vienna Centre of UrbanKnowledge Management and InstitutionalLearningFritz Kroiss, Environment Agency AustriaMaria Nicolini, IFF – KlagenfurtMichael Ornetzeder, Institute of Technolo-gy Assessment, Austria Academy of SciencesWolfgang Pfefferkorn, Rosinak & PartnerAstrid Rössler, mediatorSonja Sciri, City of Vienna

We also thankseveral people who were involved inand helped with the making of this man-ual in one way or another: Monika Auer, ÖGUTMargarete Endl, freelance journalistElisabeth Freytag, LebensministeriumDaniela Ingruber, ÖGUT (until 12/03)Inge Schrattenecker, ÖGUTAnita Zieher, PR,Training & Theater

List of authorsAcknowledgements

with generous support from

www.partizipation.at

Public participation

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

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

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

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

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

■ can save time and money, because delays and expense in connectionwith objections and court proceedings when the project is beingimplemented may be avoided.

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

Documents

ÖGUT-NEWS 3/2004 ÖGUT-NEWS 1/2007 · 2007-09-25 · Participation Manual ÖGUT-NEWS 1/2007 Shaping the future together. Authors ... particular project. Or you would like to involve