Contributie vs. Inclusie

From gentCommonsWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

= commons hangen af van contributies, en het zijn de contributies die inspraak verlenen. Dit creert ook een soort elite. In de discussie worden 2 projecten vergeleken, die daar anders mee omgaan.


In het engels, via Maarten Crivits , Charlotte Prové et al.:

"Interestingly, when external facilitators in the neighborhood asked what residents were missing, an overwhelming majority indicated the lack of a garden or green area. This resulted in a plan to make 150, 4 m2 container gardens. Construction started in 2007, and the 150 gardens are still becoming increasingly popular. Strikingly, this project has brought together white middle-class residents, the Turkish community, newcomers, previously unknown groups, and many others. They met together, engaged for the first time in the community and instigated shared ownership of the space. New social networks created awareness of spatial development and forged increased inter-group solidarity. Sharing the produce, the public space and the infrastructure on the site all brought them together, as well as a cooperative organization of public events [47]. This project also heightened awareness among the wider population and spurred discussion about the social cohesion and poverty issues in the Rabot neighborhood. The external facilitator of this project was clearly an asset for creating diversity, substantive citizenship and empowerment.

A similar project to develop a community garden was initiated in the Brugse Poort, a neighboring district. No external consultants were involved in the creation of this project, called the “Boerse Poort”. The decision-making and design processes were largely undertaken by the local government and key stakeholders in the district, in this case, white middle class men. Ghent officials put forward the requirement that this be a demographic and cultural mirror for the district. However, project stakeholders had a hard time establishing this mirror: migrant populations remained absent or refused to participate. These seemingly similar projects had a different approach to democratic participation in the initial phase. In De Site, a local and independent organization was given responsibility for the project. That organization had the capacity, resources and local knowledge to involve the different social groups and migrant populations at the beginning and give them a voice in the future development of their neighborhood. In contrast, the Boerse Poort project was owned by a few individuals who had already shaped the project to the needs of a specific group. Residents of the target groups remained absent, perhaps because they had no interest in developing community gardens or perhaps they felt excluded from the design process. In the realization of the project, the plots for minority groups were then assigned to people on the waiting list, regardless of their background.

The role of the local government is not to step away from all involvement, but it should be aware that its role is to know how, and especially when, to stimulate deliberation and participation. Decisions that project implementers might consider trivial in the initial phases have been shown to impact on the overall dynamic and societal relevance of the two projects. This is in accordance with Mendes who claims that inclusive participation is particularly important at the beginning of a trajectory, which is characterized by problem identification and solution crafting. Additionally, governance processes should account for the dynamic character of an LFS, thus resulting in changes to goals and actors. The participatory processes must include mechanisms to ensure that actors’ positions and shifting goals are represented throughout the process. Community groups in sustainable development tend to become more homogenous over time, reducing the bridging capacity these projects have. This is a particularly important issue to address, given that participants with less time, knowledge and the least resources are most likely to disengage first. We therefore argue that setting up participatory projects requires time, resources and courage and cannot be merely standardized or replicated [50]; inducing participation and guaranteeing diversity can never be achieved in the evenings alone or on the margins of a project. Instead, it should be considered as a distinct governmental task or be assigned to an independent organizer. Local government can actively support the creation of a safe and just operating space: it can act as an arbitrator in projects and initiatives that aim to create a fair playing field and equitable distribution of resources and it can stimulate deliberative involvement and co-creation in the governance process of an LFS in which customization is required. And fortunately, a government is not alone." (