1 / 15

The Citizen’s Jury method in practice

The Citizen’s Jury method in practice Citizen’s involvement and community participation in local development projects, investments, and township development - positive (and some negative) experiences of seven years Gábor Kuna, Cromo Foundation. Hypotheses.

alaric
Télécharger la présentation

The Citizen’s Jury method in practice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Citizen’s Jury method in practice Citizen’s involvement and community participation in local development projects, investments, and township development - positive (and some negative) experiences of seven years Gábor Kuna, Cromo Foundation

  2. Hypotheses  If sufficient information is provided, then the participants will be able to take responsible decisions even in complex issues.

  3. Hypotheses If all the related parties are involved well in advance in the decision-making, there is a possibility to reach a consensus of all the parties.

  4. Hypotheses A well-founded civic decision equals in its grounding and validity with the decisions of the elected public bodies and authorities, hence the citizens take part with equal weight in decision-making and planning.

  5. Keywords  equal participation  competence  12-30 participants represent their own community  representativity  independent exeprts involved  result: consensus  involvement of the public

  6. Keywords conducted by independent facilitators  written recommendation Fields of use: future planning, yes-no debates, test of social resistance or support to a future project/decision

  7. Advantages and expected results  Deliberate and responsible decisions, strengthening competence  Strengthening trust and communication between citizens and authorities Pedagogical effects

  8. Experiences, 2004-2006 Pócsmegyer: illegal waste dumping • Diósd: shopping mall or sport field? • Pilisszentlászló: community spaces and cultural life • Tápiószele:reconstruction of cemeteries • Pócsmegyer: environment protection and waste management

  9. Experiences, 2007 CJM on theGLOBFESZT conference festival: climate change

  10. Experiences, 2008-2009 Erdőkertes: local waste management • Csór: future planning, township development planning concept Adony, Nyergesújfalu:Citizen involvement in the organisational development of the mayor’s offices

  11. Experiences, 2009-2010 • Gyöngyös: develpment of the local climate protection startegies • Six small and mid size settlements: community involvement in the development of the local health strategies

  12. Experiences, 2010-2011  Roma community facilitartor training program, Pécs www.gemkapocshalo.hu Local future planning forum, Kővágószőlős

  13. Experiences, 2011-2012 Sásd: Future planning forum – the new community house • Törökszentmiklós: 12 CJMs, township development

  14. …and the next level, 2012 • „Kőkemény”: Portal for community initiations • Collects and supports community initiations • Provides methods, knowledge, and professioanl support • Mediator system among initiations, experts, methods, and resources • Incubatior: support in communication and planning • A place for donors

  15. …and that’s it Thank you very much for your attention! Gábor Kuna kuna.gabor@cromo.hu http://cromo.hu http://www.facebook.com/cromo.hu http://gakoroljuk.blog.hu

More Related