Issue 5.1
The Urbact Secretariat has issued guidelines for local support groups on 23 May. Whilst the need for guidelines is clear, it is regrettable that the guidelines have emerged in such a “top-downward” way. This is one issue that requires the full engagement of all partners in each of the projects. It would have been better to have issued a paper for discussion with a request that each partnership discusses these at their first steering group meetings and then the outcomes be feed back.
CALL FOR CHANGE
In discussing the setting up of this community one of the issues that has arisen is what will be the “consequences” for individuals who post critical comments or call for change. This issue has arisen directly from the experience of Urbact 1, where those who were seen as “critical” found their relations with the Urbact secretariat damaged. This treatment had a “knock-on” effect on many other stakeholders in that it stifled any criticisms that they had. This was unfortunate as it meant that the programme, through the secretariat, locked out real debate. The lack of real open discussion was one of the key reasons why Urbact 1 had no impact on the local level. This was the conclusion of the evaluation report of the programme. This is a big failure, given that the whole rationale and key objectives depended on making such an impact.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this rolling blog is to ensure that there is better participation in the programme by all stakeholders. To be precise, the stakeholders are :
· cities, regions, universities etc, involved in the programme through a thematic network or working group, ·
members of the Urbact Monitoring Committee;
members of the EP Regional policy committee,
· thematic experts and other experts directly involved in the programme,
· participants in events/workshops that take place at network/working group level and the programme level ,
· and anyone else directly connected to the delivery and monitoring of the programme.
The idea is to create an ongoing dialogue of the Urbact 2 programme . In short , it is to ensure that there is a multi –level, multi –professional perspective developed which will ensure that the impact of Urbact 2 will be qualitatively improved. The aim ultimately is to break the traditional separation between “decision- makers” and “doers”. Hopefully , “decision makers” will take on board the reflections emerging from the agents executing their decisions. These are the implementation bodies and actors involved in the programme through thematic networks and /or working groups
· cities, regions, universities etc, involved in the programme through a thematic network or working group, ·
members of the Urbact Monitoring Committee;
members of the EP Regional policy committee,
· thematic experts and other experts directly involved in the programme,
· participants in events/workshops that take place at network/working group level and the programme level ,
· and anyone else directly connected to the delivery and monitoring of the programme.
The idea is to create an ongoing dialogue of the Urbact 2 programme . In short , it is to ensure that there is a multi –level, multi –professional perspective developed which will ensure that the impact of Urbact 2 will be qualitatively improved. The aim ultimately is to break the traditional separation between “decision- makers” and “doers”. Hopefully , “decision makers” will take on board the reflections emerging from the agents executing their decisions. These are the implementation bodies and actors involved in the programme through thematic networks and /or working groups
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment