Giovanni Allegretti CES, Facoltà di Economia, Università di Coimbra. Co-chair of the «Autorità Indipendente per la Promozione e la Garanzia della Partecipazione della Regione Toscana»

1. Track 3:
Bologna,
November 6, 2015
Giovanni Allegretti
CES, 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.»

2. 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….

3. • 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)

4. 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)

5. 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;

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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…

9. 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…

10. 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 1
Decision-
making
CYCLE 2
Implementation
and evaluation

11. 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).

12. WITH THESE GOALS, MAINTAINING COLLECTIVE MEMORY AS A
CENTRAL ELEMENT OF A “COMMONS” SEEMED A BASIC START….
The role of OPEN TOSCANA

13. 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….

14. 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

15. 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

16. The new deal:
16
Presented
projects
Approved
projects
% of approvals
out of the total
Local
Authorities
70 40 66,04
Enterprises 12 3 11,32
Schools 14 5 13,21
Residents 10 6 9,43
Total 106 54 100

17. 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”….

18. 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

19. 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. 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

21. 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. 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
scolastici
recupero edifici
storici (e
progettazione di
servizi)

23. 23
1
2
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
politiche
pubbliche per
la mobilità e i
politiche
pubbliche per
lo sviluppo
Bilanci
partecipativi
piani di
sviluppo
locale e
politiche per
l'istruzione:
progettazion
politiche
pubbliche
culturali
politiche
pubbliche per
l’integrazione

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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;)

27. CO-MAPPING is often a large
part of such incremental
processes…
27

28.  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

29. Thanks a lot for
your patience…
(questions are more
than welcome)