CEBSD Project on Promoting Participation in 2000
Contents

1. Introduction

2. Toolkit

3. Key Concepts

4. A European Strategy for Promoting Participation

5. Exchange Events

6. Dissemination

7. Evaluation

8. Conclusion

• The European Union should adopt the principle of participation in its own programmes, working methods and consultative processes and engage, at the lowest possible level, with the communities with which it seeks to work
• The community development approach be made a formal, integral part of the European Union¹s approach to policies for urban and rural development, Local Agenda 21, social inclusion, sustainable development, citizenship, civil society and the social economy
• Participation should be formally adopted as a key value in the forthcoming European white paper on governance, embracing community development as a tool and instrument in its promotion.
  

The direct exchanges in the events enabled the partners to fulfil the first objective of the project which was "to identify and compare methods used by community development organisations to promote participation in different parts of Europe - exploring how they relate to different target groups." There are some examples including case studies in the publications from the project. Notes on each event follow the table.

Participants in the two-day Brussels/Gent explored three key concepts for establishing local neighbourhood services:

• participation and empowerment of the long-term unemployed;
  
• partnerships between the local authority, residents and other organisations;
  

• finance and management.

During the first day in Brussels on Thursday 25th of November 2000 different examples of the neighbourhood based services, such as: the Sunflower project in Dublin, la Régie de quartier in Meaux (Paris suburb), le Conseil régional de la Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais were explored. The classic employment market offers little or nothing to the long-term unemployed. Local neighbourhood services are not a magic formula but they can create new forms of employment, preferably for the inhabitants of the neighbourhood while also improving the quality of life of the neighbourhood. Local neighbourhood services take the capacities of the local inhabitants as the starting point and respond to collective needs in the neighbourhood. They produce considerable social added value. By establishing local neighbourhood services, social contacts and networks are reinforced.

"We want to do something for ourselves but we need support," was the message from local projects. Suggestions were made about what form that support should take  for example, training, support with new forms of marketing, adapting special employment measures. There was also suggestion that there should be European legislation, which would create space for putting more cash into local initiatives in recognition of their social contribution. At the moment, for example, tenants of local authority housing have no special consideration if they want to tender for a contract to manage the cleaning and maintenance of their own housing. Childcare projects created by local people often have some support from public services but shortage of funds means that the services are usually limited to part-time and training opportunities are missed.

In addition to the presentations, there were many challenging questions. How do we make sure that local self-help initiatives can survive and thrive? Can we agree on what we mean by social economy or solidarity economy? Do we need to? Should work be redefined? How do we relate to the EU and national employment plans? In many areas, where there are simply no jobs available or likely to become available, the emphasis on training for employment and on employability can be insulting for those with no qualifications.

During the second day, Friday 26th of November the emphasis switched to field visits in Gent, organised by the City and by Opbouwwerk Steunpunt Gent. The encounters were organised in collaboration with the Flora Network for training and employment creation for women. The 2-day event with the participation was run by VIBOSO, member of CEBSD, in collaboration with the European Parliament, the city of Gent, Opbouwwerk Steunpunt Gent, Flora, the European Network for Economic Self-Help and Local Development and the Steunpunt Lokale Netwerken. It was an excellent opportunity to exchange experience of practice between Flanders and Wallonie and to share this experience with other countries.

On 21 and 22 February 2000, LCO, hosted a meeting of partners in the CEBSD project on promoting participation in Rotterdam for an exchange on practical actions taken to engage the participation of local inhabitants.

The starting point for the discussion was an action based on the principle that starting with small actions on our own doorstep can lead us a long way when the action is based on sound principles and practice. Abdellah El Hardouz of Rapsodie presented the background to a joint action by the inhabitants of Moroccan origin in the Old North area of Rotterdam and the local council.

The project was based around the creation of a fountain in Moroccan style with Moroccan artwork and design. It is seen as a symbol of the positive contribution of Moroccan heritage to Europe and seeks to foster a sense of pride in their origin among young Moroccans to counter the negative pull of crime, drugs and violence. The co-operation that has developed between Morocco and Rotterdam brings with it a sense of shared ambition and responsibility. It links the heritage of the past to the future potential of young Moroccans to provide the entrepreneurial workforce needed in ageing Europe.

The first exchange was a meeting mainly of partner organisations examining the methods they use. The focus was centred on action that produced some tangible results. Many of the examples are written up in publications and other information material in their own language. In the exchange, each chose one example, which had been repeated or replicated elsewhere. The first exchange raised many broader implications, which were discussed in the course of the project. The examples demonstrate that exchanges on community development methods in the past have meant that methods developed in one country have been replicated in another, yet there is very little material which gathers this experience together in order to learn from it.

Carles Riera from Desenvolupament Comunitari (DC) used an example of participation where the town council of SaBadell in Catalunya decided to involve all the inhabitants in setting the budget according to their own priorities. The process was based on that used in Puerto Alegre in Brazil. The decision making process was based on establishing consensus and resolving conflict among key actors rather than on traditional methods of delegating authority to elected representatives. It included methods of ensuring that women, men, all ages, all interest groups and all cultural groups have a voice. It raised key issues concerning representative democracy and the role of community development workers to be discussed further.

Self-organised Mother Centres

Ans van der Scheur LCO, Netherlands presented 'Mother Centres'  which are based on a German model of self-organisation, based on four pillars of self-reliance - self-organisation, children belong, flexible programme, and work is paid. The method was adapted in the Netherlands with the additional emphasis on diversity, networks and the inclusion of all aspects of life. A high priority is given to working in an intercultural way. Each new local group of women, who want to develop a Women’s Centre, are given advice by the Development Worker at LCO. The network of Mothers’ Centres is also a source of help, support and advice. The presentation raises the issue of whether more effective participation of women is gained through working with a specific target group at a district, regional or national level or working with all interest groups in a local neighbourhood or whether it is possible to combine both.

Planning for Real

Hans-Georg Rennert presented the application of Planning for Real to the district of Wedding in Berlin. The attraction of this method, which was developed in the UK by Tony Gibson, is that it is a departure from the usual meetings and group work. This self-help group in Wedding were looking for a method that would help them organise themselves, would engage cross-sectoral co-operation which would lead to action on job creation. They created a model of the area and set it in the streets to attract attention, interest and motivation. The provided the stimulus for the development of neighbourhood action groups and action plans.

Job Creation

Gerard Hautekeur of VIBOSO, presented a survey that was carried out by a groups of women in Gent, Leuven and Menin where the participation of groups of unemployed women the women in the analysis of the their situation led to the development of concrete solutions. In Leuven for example, as a result of the survey, the women pioneered a job creation scheme by setting up a second-hand shop to fulfil identified needs. The shop, which combines laundry, ironing and repair services, creates the opportunity for the women to contribute their diverse skills. It gave Marie-Thérèse the opportunity to use her experience in secretarial work, Patricia her experience in selling, Maria her experience in ironing, and others their experience in repairing clothing. The women also make it clear that they hope that the management culture of active involvement will not fade away with the opening of the second-hand shop.

Gerard Nijssen, LCO, Netherlands presented Quality Panels based on participation of inhabitants in Rotterdam. The Quality Panels are composed of a core group of 15-20 residents who are volunteers committed to improving the quality of life in their town. They engage other volunteers who are interested in the specific topic to help them. They choose two topics a year, investigate it and come up with proposals for improvement. They have the support of the local council as long as their work is seen to have tangible results. All topics so far have resulted in recommendations being adopted and include such issues as methods of claiming welfare benefits, layout of metro stations, setting up a small business. They provide sources of information and organised feedback in a form that is not readily available to the public services or elected representatives

Wisselwerk

Fenny Gerrits (LCO): Wisselwerk, a project aimed at re-involving the unemployed. This project was a pilot to test matching the needs of low-paid workers for time off with the needs of the unemployed to have paid work experience. Partially paid leave was granted to workers in routine physical work to have time to devote to voluntary work in a neighbourhood. The project had been developed and adapted by the public sector in one district with the main purpose to permitting workers time off to pursue personal needs and to help them in recruiting suitable staff. It raises the issues of partnership between the public and private institutions in developing support for local initiatives whilst meeting their own priorities.

Hans Andersson presented techniques for decision making and working in meetings that have been developed and adapted by CESAM in Sweden. These methods and techniques enable groups from the smallest to groups of several hundred to reach decisions and plan actions according to their issues and their priorities. Hans reminded us that the philosophy of participation has been with us for centuries and that certain core elements can be identified if we look across the range of thinkers and activists at an international level. One of the keys to participation is to understand group behaviour and the operation of each of us as individuals in the different groups in which we participate.

The exchange concluded with the thought that techniques for participation can be used for positive or negative ends. The underlying principles and values are just as important. Commonly shared assumptions, ideas and values can be used by one group to dominate and exclude another. Crises in local neighbourhoods can be exploited to build xenophobic and socially divisive movements. Local community development has an important role to play. In developing a framework for participation, the specific local situation needs to be taken into account. When specific experience is shared, the exchange can help us develop ideas in common that incorporate diversity whether in neighbourhoods or in Europe as a whole, as a positive and enriching element. It must be followed by results. Fine words, speeches and policies about involving citizens at a national and European level or even local town council level need the means to translate them into practical neighbourhood action.

Örebro: Neighbourhood Democracy at Work

Democratic housing policy

This two-day event Neighbourhood Democracy at Work  was organised by the Swedish Association of Municipal housing Companies (SABO), Combined European Bureau for Social Development (CEBSD) and the Swedish CEBSD partner Centrum För Samhällsarbete och Mobilisering(CESAM)- Centre for Community Development and Mobilisation. There were 35 participants in the exchange of experience from Swedish municipalities, from the Swedish Union of Tenants, the Swedish Ministry of Finance, Swedish Ministry of Justice and CEBSD partners from Ireland, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Hungary, Norway, the United Kingdom and France. The theme of this event was the decline in participatory democracy especially participation from major housing estates.

The event opened with visits to local housing estates – Baronbackarna and Vivalla - where local projects presented their work and their ideas. There is a strong emphasis on cultural activities as they are one of the best methods of promoting participation. It was clear people in these areas want to have a say and play a responsible part in society but support is required to enable them to achieve this. There were a number of presentations following the visits.Bengt Ove Birgersson Executive Director of SABO explored the benefits of Public housing which is on the tenants’ terms. Johnny Andersson, the Vice Mayor of Örebro spoke about the development of democracy in Örebro. Paul Henderson spoke about the part played by Community Development in stimulating and supporting participatory democracy

The event also demonstrated methods, which are designed to increase participation. A Dare to Share Fair, and an Open Space Workshop provided a means of sharing perspectives from the different countries and relating it to the Swedish experience. The publication gives the text of the presentations and includes case studies from Bradford,UK; and Trinitat Nova, Barcelona, Spain.

CEBSD, CESAM and the City of Örebro continue to work in co-operation to encourage local authorities across Europe working together on practical strategies for the renewal of participatory democracy.

On 22, 23, 24 September in Créteil near Paris, CEBSD member, MDSL in collaboration with other associations, and with the support of the French "Conseil National des Villes". organised the participation of local people in the second International Festival of Créteil under the theme of "Towns in Europe". 65 local people from local tenants groups and local community groups across Europe were invited by to participate in forming a European network of local people. CEBSD supported the attendance of 10 of these under the auspices of the project on promoting participation.

The event was an inspiring mixture of discussion and debate, with the innovative use of dramatic presentation and song to develop community life. Local people with the aid of Saoul Fauks from Argentina developed a charter of rights in a workshop. This was presented to the Vice-President of the European Parliament, Marie-Noelle Lienemann and Claude Bartelone, Minister de la Ville, France.

HACER

HACER (HAbitant Citoyens d’Europe en Réseau) had a prominent place in "Place Publique", the networking space reserved for participation from ordinary citizens. Its members share three main objectives

• To support local people in their relations with elected members and professionals and open spaces of debate between them.
• To make known and to share experiences of participatory democracy and active citizenship in Europe.
• To disseminate innovative methods of co-creating the Town of the 21st century

Gerard Hautekeur of VIBOSO drew together for CEBSD the following conclusions from the debate in Créteil

Participatory democracy is not opposed to but is complementary to consultative or representative democracy.

There are several benefits of participation for the (local) government:

• Client oriented services;
• A more efficient analysis of the needs in the neighbourhood;
• A broader consensus about the decision making where decisions are based on the experiences and suggestions of the citizens.

Community development can mobilise people and create the condition of their active participation.

People’s participation very much depends on the political goodwill of politicians. People only get a better say and made their voice heard when politicians and civil servants have the right attitude towards participation. If not all political intentions and legislation about participation remains without any real effect.

Community development workers believe that participation should be organised by non governmental organisations or associations which are independent – autonomous.

• The government should nevertheless create the necessary condition for citizen’s participation, especially in the so-called neglected or disadvantaged neighbourhood. It could allocate a (national) budget for
  + organisation of the participation, the training of community workers and volunteers who are active in projects and associations
  + meeting places
  + support of local associations
• We realise that the time of the ideology and big debate is over. One must come up with concrete projects and results
• We must also face the growing individualisation the so-called NIMBY-syndrome- (not in my backyard). We should therefore not only stress of focus on the rights of citizens, but also on their duties as responsible citizens
• A serious threat to democracy is the fragmentation of society we should therefore try to improve the local networks and the social cohesion
• Community development workers are not in favour of one model which might be imposed on local level. On the contrary they think that one should respect the local context, the local needs and capacities and organise people’s participation accordingly
• The (European and) national government should leave sufficient space for the partners locally to organise the participation
• In order to promote participation and create the necessary condition the government should include the principle of people’s participation in the national legislation.
• Community development organisation can act as catalyst for action of different partners. It mobilises resources within the neighbourhood but also brings in resources from the outside.

The European Union could in its strategy for promoting participation also support a network of citizen’s participation projects in Europe. CEBSD and the members of CEBSD (such as MDSL, VIBOSO, DC, CESAM) are prepared to act as intermediary bodies to facilitate this exchange of information.

Leeds: Community Audit

Community Audit in Harehills and Chapeltown.

On 2^nd November, Community Development Foundation, Desenvolupament Comunitari, VIBOSO, CESAM and the project leader were hosted by a community learning project at the West Indian Centre, Chapeltown, Leeds. This project brings together a group of local people who have have been learning how to collect information about their communities, including carrying out a community audit. The project is supported by Leeds Housing and Community Care Project, Leeds URBAN Initiative, Regeneration Partnership and the Community Development Foundation.

Sharing knowledge

Members of the group described the learning process and the implementation of the community audit. The course which is called Community Development and local research, is accredited through the Open College. Yvette Small, a lecturer from Leeds Metropolitan University described the gap between academic knowledge and community knowledge – "no meeting of minds". Winifred, a student on the course, described how carrying out the audit "opened my understanding and eyes to things that are happening and not happening" in the area. Janet echoed this, "I got an insight into the community, what people needed, wanted and expected; what organisations were achieving and not achieving".

Dissemination

Yvonne emphasised the importance of word of mouth both to recruit members and to fill in the questionnaire. She had come to the group through another group, which is exploring forms of community action against crime. It is hoped that the presentation of the results of the audit to the community will sow the seeds for a community forum to counteract the disillusionment and fragmentation in the area. They plan to make use of community networks and local radio to stimulate interest in the results. They are interested in forming links with other groups in similar areas across Europe to help them form a positive vision of the Harehills and Chapeltown of the future.

Bradford: Community Work Training

Community Training Company

The Community Training Company established a limited company 3 years ago in response to changing needs. The history of community work as a profession in the UK was explored and recent demands for community involvement in regeneration programmes had influenced the perception of community work. Another major influencing factor is the emphasis on accreditation of community work in the past 4/5 years. Forms of training that are appropriate to empowerment and capacity building also demand outreach work in communities and educational institutions.

The Community Training Company hosted a discussion between CEBSD partners and trainers/researchers from local bodies. In response to the presentation of CEBSD’s toolkit for promoting participation, the point was made that the skill of the person using the techniques and the context in which they are used are major influencing factors which should not be underestimated. There was some discussion on the trend to have specialists in to present particular methods or to use techniques to focus community discussion on outcomes. No toolkit should be used prescriptively and should not exclude forms of practice, which are self-created.

CEBSD’s emphasis on the importance of values and concepts was welcomed. Concepts such as empowerment and social inclusion were linked to democracy, equality, equity, human rights. There are advantages and disadvantages of a Northern "rationalistic" and organisational approach compared to a more spontaneous Southern one that is rooted in local self-organisation. A bottom-up approach enables people to do more with less because they make better use of "personal resources, personal networking", according to Ester Busquets. Comparisons were made between the history of community development in Spain, Sweden, Belgium and the UK. The part played by community development in reducing the democratic deficit was explored. There was interest in pursuing discussion on this – possibly through a forum on the CEBSD website.

7. Evaluation

On-going evaluation

There was a process of self-evaluation of the progress of the project on its aims. At the first evaluation meeting in London in April, it was decided to add another dimension to the project in the form of a questionnaire on participation, based on the views of local residents. VIBOSO, CPA, CDF and Desenvolupament Comunitari agreed to translate and pilot a questionnaire to assess whether it would be possible to collect the views of local residents. At the interim evaluation of the project in Barcelona in July, further opportunities to increase the involvement of local people in the direct actions of the project were explored. As a result, the number of events was reduced and the level of participation from local residents increased. The on-going evaluation ensured that these actions, which would lead to the achievement of the objectives set for the project.

Partners in this exchange hosted visitors from different European countries. The number of visitors hosted by the project varied from 3 visitors to 10. Hosts and visitors each contributed and co-ordinated material according to their expertise and their experience. Host groups were asked to invite local people to these exchanges or arrange visits where there can be discussion with local people. This meant that the number of people involved in the exchanges was multiplied many times over (see summary of events), thus increasing the impact of the project. Representatives of a training or research bodies also contributed to exchanges. The low level of participation by Paritätisches Bildungswerk in events was a disappointment but unavoidable due to pressures of work. PBW contributed through e-mail and phone contact. The project also attracted the interest of groups in Berlin and there will be some follow-up work there.

The exchanges were key to the other partners fulfilling the first objective of the project which was to "to identify and compare methods used by community development organisations to promote participation in different parts of Europe - exploring how they relate to different target groups." The Evaluation Sub-Group decided to pilot a questionnaire which provided further information on this directly from interviews with specific target groups in the border area of Ireland, Barcelona, London and Belgium.

Networking widely used and partners view it as a determinant of success in achieving involvement at events. It is difficult to find funding for the tasks involved in networking and it is also difficult to demonstrate direct correlation between throughput and outputs. This is something that requires more analysis. Paul Henderson of CDF, a CEBSD partner pointed out in the Swedish conference on Neighbourhood Democracy at work. that it is important to establish a clear framework which defines the relationship between participatory democracy and community development. Such a framework can address those who criticise community development for its "lack of definition and specificity."The Combined European Bureau has a common history of working in a transparent and open way. This was a major contributory factor to the high level of goodwill and co-operation between partners. Even with such goodwill, the development of the toolkit, concepts and strategy would not have been possible within the given budget and timescales without extensive use of e-mail. There is a lot of follow-up needed. The work on the toolkit is seen as a beginning and it is hoped to use it to inspire others to add to it, amend it etc. A lot of work needs to be done at a local level in order that local groups can benefit from communication using new technology.

As the outputs demonstrate the indicators of success set to measure progress were mainly achieved. However, this demanded more resources than the aid received by the EC and already allocated to the project by CEBSD. The main lesson for CEBSD is that the project was under-resourced in relation to its objectives. Additional resources to carry out the questionnaire and to compile the strategy have been contributed by partners in order to reach the targets and to involve local people. The main shortfall has been the lack of time to disseminate the results of the project during its lifetime.

Consultation between partners and the communication required to prepare, set up and report on the productive exchanges between partners have consumed most of the time available. The development of the toolkit, concepts and strategy were made possible within the given budget and time-scales with extensive use of e-mail. A commitment to consultation and dialogue has a hallmark of the project. The toolkit demands additional work and further consultation. This is possible as it can readily be amended on the website.

Evaluation of Impact

The fourth objective of the project was "to test structures and systems of communication for on-going dialogue and information-sharing among member associations, neighbourhood groups, community activists, community workers, organisations and institutions concerned with community and social development training, research and policy making. This has proved the most difficult objective to realise as the existing structures are not connected sufficiently at the different levels.

The methods of organisation used in the course of the project have facilitated the direct involvement of other agencies in the development of the project. It has proved difficult to allocate sufficient time for follow-up within the one-year duration of the project. Further follow-up is planned by CEBSD. The following are some examples of where there are discussions which seek to carry on work on promoting participation.

Ministry of Employment, Flanders, Belgium

Ministry of Justice, Sweden "Time for democracy" initiative

Ministère de la Ville, France

SABO, Swedish Association of Municipal Housing Companies, Sweden

Quartiers en Crise, European Network

EAPN European Anti-Poverty Network

EURONETZ:European Network for economic self-help and local development:

Eurocom, Berlin

International Association for Community Developement

The New Economics Foundation, England

European Institute of Social Services, University of Kent at Canterbury

Planning for Real and Millennium Fact Bank, UK

Place Publique – a consortium of French organisations

Ideas Bank, Norway

Agence Alter, Bruxelles, Belgium

Kommunales Forum Wedding, Berlin

There is considerable scope to develop contacts with other agencies that are active in this field but many of them are in a similar position to members of CEBSD in that their energies are concentrated on local, regional and national initiatives with very limited time for European exchanges.

The emphasis on tangible outputs in the form of documents, publications etc. limits the time available to draw the full benefits of networking by direct contact by phone, e-mail etc. Yet it has been often by word of mouth that opportunities for dialogue have developed. More links between actions supplemented by a sound database of organisations and of trans-national networks working on participation methods would be useful. CEBSD has endeavoured to make links from its website where possible as one means of addressing this problem but does not have the resources to follow this up satisfactorily at this point.

There are serious gaps, as there appears to be no European networking of organisations involved in community work training. University networks do not appear to interconnect in any systematic way with non-governmental organisations. The European Social Platform is perhaps the best example of networks addressing the need for greater collaboration but there are a significant number of European networks, which are not included in this group.

The resources of European networks like CEBSD are usually overstretched. One of the major findings has been that there is a need for better connection and communication between the range of initiatives on participation – within member states and between member states of the European Union. Even limited knowledge of the European –funded initiatives on participation/partnership/consultation indicates that there is currently a duplication of effort. In the dialogue between partners made possible in the "Promoting Participation" project, it is clear that some additional resources allocated to combining and maximising exchange of experience can enhance the work of the partners and make a contribution to consensus. Duplication of effort can be transformed into a means of multiplication and dissemination with better co-ordination and increased dialogue. Follow-up on recommendations and dissemination of information is needed to increase the relevance of work already being carried out. Co-ordination between networks has an important role to play here.

8. Conclusions

Exchanges of practice and theory – especially those in Bradford and Rotterdam - concluded that techniques for participation could be used for positive or negative ends. The underlying principles and values are just as important. One group can use shared assumptions, ideas and values to dominate and exclude another. Crises in local neighbourhoods can be exploited to build xenophobic and socially divisive movements. Local community development can play an important role in counteracting such social divisions.

CEBSD partners are committed to sharing and developing the toolkit, concepts and strategy developed in the course of the European Union funded project on promoting participation. Plans for further dissemination will be discussed at a meeting hosted by the Combat Poverty Agency in Ireland in December 2000. To date plans include an invitation to present the project in Berlin in March 2001 and a conference in London in November 2001 on "Citizen Participation and the ‘New’ Europe" organised by Community Development Foundation, CEBSD and the International Association for Community Development.

In the discussions on representative democracy and participatory democracy, it was concluded that these were complementary but there is no clear correlation established between them. However, community development offers a means of enhancing the interaction between participation in representative democracy and participatory democracy at a local level. Methods used to promote participation can allow for the specificity of the local situation. Yet when specific experience is shared, the exchange can help us develop ideas in common that incorporate diversity whether in neighbourhoods or in Europe as a whole, as a positive and enriching element. Participation must be linked to results. Fine words, speeches and policies about involving citizens whether at national, European level or local town council level can undermine motivation unless the means to translate them into practical neighbourhood action are developed. CEBSD seeks a meeting to discuss the principles and proposals for action arising from the strategy which completes the work of the project to date.

REF: EU funded Project on Promoting Participation S12.132134 in 2000

Combined European Bureau for Social Development

Stiftung No. 27S156304 Den Haag