Governance is both an expression and a manifestation of an organization’s purpose. It concerns the language we use and the expressions we share. In this direction, an important theoretical point to consider for a co-governance model is the approach, the language and posture, meaning the ability to listen to each other. As part of the deliverable-report ‘D2.2 The drop community-based creative projects’ we tried to apply these rules and principles, designing a workshop journey to implement the drOp Co-governance Model.
The drOp co-governance model provides cities with an integrated toolbox to guide and sustain meaningful and effective actions in the intervention areas (Santa Ana neighbourhood, Spine Bianche neighbourhood and Nooruse neighbourhood), considering that the model is city-based, meaning that it can include the entire city and not only the district dimension. In this direction, this deliverable reports on the way to apply and make the model concrete into the urban civic, political and cultural fabric of the pilot cities.
Indeed, starting from the model’s fundamental pillars, and precisely from the Local Task Forces (LTF), it has been designed and partially already tested and prototyped an implementation model, based on more than 11 workshop sessions.
The co-governance workshop sessions are structured into 4 phases: these represent the stages each city will follow to implement the LTF and broadly its own drOp co-governance model. These phases should be considered concentric, meaning that phase 4 (evaluation) is the input for a next phase 1.
The co-governance model’s implementation is based on evidence from previous co-creation and co-governance experiences, such as the European Capital of Culture 2019. It is also shaped by the theoretical model developed and reported in deliverable-report on ‘The Co-governance methodology for the drOp project’, as well as theories on specific practices and concepts, such as common goods, voting systems, and sociocracy.
The most important part of the deliverable is about decision-making. There’s no “one size to all” decision-making method. It usually depends on local characteristics and needs to be applied to topics and participative composition. The theory reports a wide portfolio of possible modalities to deliberate and vote together. In relation to the drOp Co-governance model, and to the aim of the model itself, which refers to the ability to shorten the distance between citizens and local administrations regarding local development policies and projects, as well as favouring local participation and the habit of actively designing the future of its city, the best option is adopting the consent methodology, based on the principles of the common goods, and the sociocracy. In this direction, consent is a participatory process like consensus, but instead of seeking the best decision for the group, consent is the absence of objections. The group looks for a proposal that is “good enough for now & safe enough to try”.
During the previous months, this implementation structure was tested in Matera. This test gave the possibility to introduce the topic in Matera, as well as provide insights on how the process works and so extrapolate the model, reported in the previous chapter, that should be applied to the other cities.
The process (called in Italian “Sedimentazioni”, meaning “Sedimentation”) has been conducted following the first seven workshops. All the participants were mapped in terms of connections among them, desires towards their own city and expressed needs. At the same time, it has been asked why they are participating in this journey, obtaining the following answers, as stated (in Italian) in the following figure: most of the people are moved by the desire to contribute to their own city’s development as well as by the acquisition of new competences.
The prototype has been useful in stressing the functioning of each workshop session and obtaining some evidence. For example, the entire process needs to be validated by the public municipality and by the most important local institutions, in order to define the range of action of the future LTF, its operability and especially goals. Moreover, it is fundamental to define and map what has been already done by the local municipalities: are there similar movements, and journeys? Are local citizens familiar with terms such as co-governance, common goods, and so on? What has been already done? If yes, what works and what fails?
The last sessions, dedicated to voting, sharing responsibilities and designing concrete actions require patience and time flexibility since they are crucial for the proceeding of the co-governance model and are not always immediate to absorb. The important feedback regards the ability to find the best modality to set participative decisions based on local habits, partially stressing the adoption of new modalities that of course require time to be taken and used smoothly. Moreover, it is important in this stage, to make CCIs and NGOs part of the conversation, since they are used with cooperation and participative representation and can sharply support the success of the process.
Stay tuned to access the full report!
