Track 3:

Bologna,

November 6, 2015

Giovanni AllegrettiCES, Facoltà di Economia, Università di Coimbra.

Co-chair of the «Autorità Indipendente per la Promozione e la Garanzia della Partecipazione

della Regione Toscana»

«Tuscommoning. When a law promote a new culture of com-

moning and collaborative governance. The case of Tuscany.»

An introduction• Hope not to contribute to a new “overstretching”

of the concept of “commons”

• But I would like to propose, from the perspective

of a person charged of a techno-political task in

a public institution, some reflections about an

other “overstretched” concept: participation.

• And I will try to do it joinining together reflections

on a Law “participation” who tried to give shape

to the “circular subsidiarity” foreseen by the

neglected article 118.4 of the Italian Constitution

(which we can imagine as a commons) and its

main contents, which deal with an issue

fundamental in commoning….

• The right to the city is far more than the

individual liberty to access urban resources: it

is a right to change ourselves by changing the

city. It is, moreover, a common rather

than an individual right since this

transformation inevitably depends upon the

exercise of a collective power to reshape the

processes of urbanization. The freedom to

make and remake our cities and ourselves is,

I want to argue, one of the most precious yet

most neglected of our human rights.

(David Harvey, THE RIGHT TO THE CITY, New Left Review nª 53/Sept 2008, p. 23)

In Tuscany we have a Regional Law (since 2007, then modified in

2013) for promoting and guaranteeing participation of citizens in the

construction of public policies at regional and local levels, as a way to

implement the Right to the City (including the rural) and to pass from

a community participation to a citizens participation.

Although it doesn’t explicitly talk about commons, we

consider itself a “commons”, because:

1) it was the output of a 2 years process of public

debate;

2) it has a “fading clause” which obliges citizens to

take care of it and its effectiveness (if the finiteness

of resources is a pivotal aspect for promoting

commoning);

3) It allows the use of public resources (60% at least

of 700.000 €) to promote effective social dialogue,

finding point of convergence between forms of

PARTICIPATION BY INVITATION and forms of

PARTICIPATION BY IRRUPTION (Ibarra, 2007)

4) Created an independent authority for monitoring

and stimulating participatory cultures (named by the

Council) (so recognizing the role of institution in

multiplying the effects of grassroots processes while

granting social authonomy)

Some of its values, which make

it a “promoter of commoning” (1)• Section I – Art. 1– Principles

• 1. Participation in the formulation and making of regional and local policies

is a right. This law promotes forms and instruments of democratic

participation to render this right effective.

• 2. (… it refers to articles 58 and 59 of the Tuscanian Statutes, on social

subsidiarity, in as much as the law encourages the autonomous initiative of

inhabitants and organised social groups

• 3. This law likewise pursues the following aims:

• a) contributing to the renewal of democracy and its institutions by integrating

it with practices, processes and instruments of participatory democracy;

• b) promoting participation as an everyday form of administration and

government of the Region in all sectors and at all governmental levels;

• c) reinforcing, by means of the participation of inhabitants, the capacity to

elaborate, define and formulate public policies;

• (…) e) contributing to greater social cohesion by means of the diffusion of a

culture of participation and enhancement of all forms of civic commitment;

Some of its values, which make it a “promoter of

commoning” (2) - methodological pluralism

• f) contributing to gender equality(

• g) favouring the social inclusion and emerging of diffused or inadequately

represented interests;

• h) stimulating and activating the commitment and participation of everyone

in the choices and life of local and regional communities;

• i) enhancing the widespread knowledge, competences and commitment of

the community;

• j) promoting the diffusion of best practices in participation and their relative

models;

• k) enhancing other participatory experiences in progress.

• 4. The provisions of this law cannot be interpreted as limiting the forms of

participation not provided for by this law itself nor as limiting the broader

inclusivity of all participatory processes.

• 5. In the definition of regional programmes for public works with equal

criteria of priority, the Regional Government favours those works for which

public debate in accordance with Section II is to be or has already been

held.

Some of its values, which make it a

“promoter of commoning” (3) – a broader

range of persons entitled participants

• Article 2:

• Holders of the right to participate

• 1. Participatory processes can be partaken by:

• a) resident citizens and foreign or displaced citizens who are legally resident

in the territory affected by participatory processes;

• b) the people who work, study or are occasionally living in the concerned

territory;

• c) when in Tuscany, the Tuscans who reside abroad;

• d) other persons, also at their request, who have an interest in the

concerned territory or in the matter of the participatory process, in so far as

their involvement in the participatory process is deemed useful by the

person in charge of the proceedings.

Multipolar and multifactorial participation

Citizen Citizen Citizen

Informal groups

Associations, movements, NGOs, other organized

groups

citizen citizencitizen

Elected Officials

Technical staff/employees

“One-to-one Dialogue”

Abandoning a model which foster self-referenciality

Elected Officials

Technical staff/employees

We are trying to foster a culture which

help to progressive abandon the

traditional “concertation between

“stakeholders” in favor of a larger

dialogue which can reduce stiffness in

representing frozen positions…

Taking a position means explaining why we have a preference, not imposing it….

Since article 10 of Law 69/2007, there

is an obligation to respond to people’s

proposals, as a minimum requirement

– but few commitment has been put

in SELF-RULING PARTICIPATION…

RESPONSIVENESS and MEANINGFUL TIMINGS AT THE CORE:Reminding that every participatory process is composed by two cycles, and taking

care of the second is strategic for the sake of the first one…

CYCLE 1Decision-making

CYCLE 2 Implementationand evaluation

60% of our annual budget must be allocated (by law) to support proposals of local

authorities, schools (with a fix %), private sector enterprises and groups of citizens

(the latter having to collect signatures and create a formal organism in order to be

able to receive funding).

The law provides some basic criteria for rewarding best proposals during the 3

yearly CALL FOR PROPOSALS. We added some others….

1) Relevance of the object

2) Relevance of costs (in relation to the costs of

implementation of decisions)

3) Evaluation of effects on local community (also

for spreading a culture of participation and

active citizenship).

WITH THESE GOALS, MAINTAINING COLLECTIVE MEMORY AS A

CENTRAL ELEMENT OF A “COMMONS” SEEMED A BASIC START….

The role of OPEN TOSCANA

We imagine that DATA linked to LOCAL POLICIES and

PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES THEMSELVES are also a commons

that must be enhanced…with the tools that each one have! We tried

to start to foster such a sharing through OPEN TOSCANA and now

we are facing debates about PROTECTION of DATA and Misuse….

SUPPORTED LOCAL PROCESSES UNTIL 2013

(5 years)• 220 Requests

21% Schools

12% Citizens Groups

0% Enterprises

67 % Local

Authorities 77%

municipalities)

• 116 Funded Processes

• Everage cost per

project: 33.000 € (+

6.000 € in co-funding)

• 2 millions of citizens

interested (out of

3.750.511 hab/2014)

• 80.000 participants

• 10.000 with high

degree of activism

• 19% Participatory Budgeting

• 20,9% Educational projects

• 18,6% urban requalification

• 10% Tools of planning

• 6,8% Environmental policies

• 6,4% Ruling codes

• 6,4% Socioeconomic policies

• 4,5% rail and road

infrastructures/ports

HOW DID WE WORK, IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE PAST RESULTS AND

BETTER ADAPT TO A GROWTH IN THE DIFFUSION OF A CULTURE OF

PARTICIPATION?

WE TRIED TO INCREASE THE DIALOGUE WITH PRIOPOSAL IN A PEDAGOGIC

ENVIROMENT,

OFFERING INTERNATIONAL MIRRORS,

WITH “LA MIA TOSCANA” PROJECT WE TRIED TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY

OF REGIONAL EMPLOYEES TO BE PREPARED FOR ENGAGING IN

PARTICIPATION FINALLY WE ADDED NEW

CREATERIA ABOUT

SUSTAINABILITY OF THE

PROCESS, CLEARENNESS OF

RULES, COHERENCE

GOALS/TOOLS, and capacity of

increasing ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP

The new deal:

16

Presented

projects

Approved

projects

% of approvals

out of the total

Local

Authorities70 40 66,04

Enterprises 12 3 11,32

Schools 14 5 13,21

Residents 10 6 9,43

Total 106 54 100

Our tight dialogue with proposers translates the desire of expelling

ourselves as gatekeepers, and opening a co-pedagogic space where we

co-plan the processes and learn together how to do it (so dematerializing

our eventual technocratic touch as an academic elite borrowed to a political

task…). We would like to avoid to say to project “passed”/”not approved”….

Improving quality in time

18

APPROVED PROJECTS (presented

once or more times)

Jun

e14

July

14

Oct.

14

Jan

15

May

15

Projects approved at the first time 17 3 10 8 6

Projects approved at the second

representation 4 2 3

Projects approved at the third

representation 1

Total 17 3 14 10 10

UNAPPROVED PROJECTS (in relation to how many

times they have been represented)

Project presented once, not approved and never

represented 24

Project presented twice, not approved and never

represented 7

Total 31

Geographic

distribution

19

provenienza geografica progetti finanziati

Arezzo

2%

Firenze

33%

Grosseto

7%Livorno

4%Lucca

11%

Massa

4%

Pisa

15%

Prato

9%

Pistoia

6%

Siena

9%

Arezzo

Firenze

Grosseto

Livorno

Lucca

Massa

Pisa

Prato

Pistoia

Siena

20

Dimensione ente proponente

10

12

8

8

4

enti locali

tra 0 e 10,000 abitanti

tra 10,000 e 20,000 abitanti

tra 20,000 e 50,000 abitanti

tra 50,000 e 100,000 abitanti

oltre 100.000 abitanti

Enti locali finanziati dalla legge 46/2013

Finanziamenti erogati

477000

51000

275000 250000

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Serie2 477000 51000 275000 250000

giu-14 lug-14 ott-14 gen-15

Typologies of projects

21

Categorie progetti finanziati

pianificazione

territoriale

28%

Coesione

sociale e beni

comuni

32%

Strumenti di

programmazione

e governance

partecipativa

40%

Coesione sociale e beni

comuni

pianificazione territoriale

Strumenti di

programmazione e

governance partecipativa

Social cohesion and

commons

Urban planning

Tools for programming,

planning and

participatory

governance

22

Subcategories

Coesione sociale e beni comuni - sottocategorie

3 3

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

creazione legami

(“patti”) comunitari,

contratti di fiume ecc

Piani partecipati della

protezione civile

stategie di coesione

sociale

Pianificazione territoriale - sottocategorie

progettazione

ambientale

13%

formulazione piani

urbanistici e

regolamenti

7%

recupero e

rivitalizzazione

centri storici

20%

progettazione e

riqualificazione

scuole e servizi

scolastici

27%

progettazione di

servizi

20%

recupero edifici

storici (e

progettazione di

servizi)

13%

recupero e

rivitalizzazione

centri storici

formulazione piani

urbanistici e

regolamenti

progettazione

ambientale

progettazione di

servizi

progettazione e

riqualificazione

scuole e servizi

scolasticirecupero edifici

storici (e

progettazione di

servizi)

23

12

1

3

11

1 1 1

Strumenti di programmazione locale e governance partecipativa -

sottocategorie

Serie2

Serie2 1 2 1 3 11 1 1 1

formulazione

piani,

regolamenti

polit iche

pubbliche per

la mobilità e i

polit iche

pubbliche per

lo sviluppo

Bilanci

partecipat ivi

piani di

sviluppo

locale e

polit iche per

l'istruzione:

progettazion

polit iche

pubbliche

culturali

polit iche

pubbliche per

l’integrazione

In general, the bottom-up proposals are more chaotic

initially, but the ones who faster grow/mature… (in

terms of language and methodologies absorbed from

facilitators)

24

In terms of issues citizens concerns are more often linked to

unemployment, counter-projects for sensitive areas, fair trade and solidarity

economy, management of abandoned areas. They are less sophisticated

in terms of ICTs, but more engaged, and – first of all “Self-ruled”.

In some cases we have to protect them from the rage of their administrative

institutions, which refuse to become their counterparts…

Recently we are incentivizing municipalities which want to

create legal systems (Fosdinovo) for letting citizens manage

resources as woods to produce energy…

25

Some exemples of collaborative governance, as POP-UP

(revitalization of comercial spaces in historic centres),

almost are becoming “regional policies” and national

references. They also are connected with networks and

ideas around the country (as CIVISM project showed)

…but we still miss a lot (CO-CITIES for exemple, urban

food sovereignity plans;)

CO-MAPPING is often a large

part of such incremental

processes…

27

What is more difficult?

a) Scaling-up these reflections at Regional level. Especially

where the private sector is involved. It seems that our Law

gave up to the possibilities of articles 41-42 of Italian

Constitutions which submit private sector and private

properties to the “public function” values… So, we have

different procedures and obligations (in relation to Public

Debate) for private and public actors.

2) Finally the use of public resources for improving

participation tends to be seen as a sort of “waste of

Money”, without thinking about the quality of deliberation

and its need to be seriously pursued through a logic of civic

pedagogy.28

Thanks a lot for your patience…

(questions are more

than welcome)