Oebs Standards Engl Finale Web

8/3/2019 Oebs Standards Engl Finale Web

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/oebs-standards-engl-finale-web 1/32

StandardS of Public ParticiPation

Recommendations for Good Practice



I m p r I n t

P u b l i s h e d b y :

Austrian Federal ChancelleryDirectorate III – Public ServiceDepartment III/7 – Innovative Administrative DevelopmentHohenstauengasse 3, 1010 ViennaMichael Kallinger, [email protected]

Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water ManagementDepartment V – General Environmental ManagementDivision V/8 – EU Aairs, EnvironmentStubenbastei 5, 1010 ViennaRita Trattnigg, [email protected]

E x t e r n a l p r o c e s s m a n a g e m e n t a n d t e c h n i c a l s u p p o r t :

Kerstin Arbter

I l l u s t r a t i o n s :

Klaus Pitter

Tr a n s l a t i o n a n d p r o o f - r e a d i n g :Mirjam Freund

Graphic Design:Gerda Palmetshoer

Year of publ icat ion:German version: 2008English layout version: 2011

All rights reserved.

Recommended citation orm: Standards o Public Participation (2008; adopted by the Austrian Council o Ministers on 2 July 2008)



The Standards o Public Participation were prepared by an inter-ministerial working group with the

participation o legally established representations o interest, NGOs and external experts as part o

a project commissioned by the Austrian Federal Chancellery and the Austrian Federal Ministry o Agriculture,

Forestry, Environment and Water Management and were adopted by the Austrian Council o Ministers on

2 July 2008.

A practical guide on the Standards o Public Participation is available on www.partizipation.at/standards_

oeb.html (in German).

We would like to thank all participants cordially or their contributions and or their committed work orgood governance in Austria!

StandardS of Public ParticiPation

Recommendations for Good Practice



4. 1 What iS Public ParticiPation? ...................................................................

4. 2 Who iS the Public? .................................................................................

4. 3 intenSity levelS of Public ParticiPation .....................................................

4. 4 Where to aPPly the StandardS of Public ParticiPation .................................

1 ob j e ct i v e S

3 S tandardS of Pub l i c Part i c i Pat ion

4 d e f in i t ionS

5 b enef i t S

5

2 Pr inc i P l e S 7

11

23

29

3. 1 StandardS for the PreParation of the ParticiPation ProceSS .........................

3.2 StandardS for the imPlementation of the ParticiPation ProceSS ....................3.2.1 StandardS for informative Public ParticiPation (information ) ...........

3.2.2StandardS for conSultative Public ParticiPation (conSultation )

........3.2.3 StandardS for cooPerative Public ParticiPation (cooPeration ) ..........

3. 3 StandardS for the monitoring and evaluation of the ParticiPation ProceSS ....

13

1516

1720

22

24

24

25

27



StandardS of Public ParticiPation – recommendationS for Good Practice

5

objectiveS1



Where policies, plans, programmes, and legal instruments are prepared,

the public is increasingly oered an opportunity to participate. Public, politics

and administration can beneft optimally rom such involvement where the

participation o the public is exercised at a high quality. This can be ensured

by the application o standards aimed at maximising the eectiveness and efciency o public participation. The present Standards o Public Participation

are to help administrative sta o the ederal government in the concrete

conduct o high-quality participation processes. They are a contribution to

good governance in Austria.

objectiveS of Public ParticiPation

p u b l I c p a r t I c I p a t I o n I s t o …

… promote the exchange o inormation and experiences.

… oster the comprehension or diering other opinions and the coordination

o interests.

… enhance the quality and transparency o decisions.

… enhance the acceptance and traceability o decisions, also o those whose

social benets will become evident only in the long run.

… strengthen the identication o citizens and interest groups with decisions,but also with the areas they live in.

… strengthen people’s trust in politics and public administration and to

provide broader bases o decision-making or political and administrative

decision-makers.

… create a broad approach to opinion-orming.

… help avoid delays and extra costs in the implementation o the policies,

plans, programmes, and legal instruments, thereby optimising the use o resources.




7

PrinciPleS2



Working together or the uture means that ...

… Politics, administration, citizens, and interest groups are willing to work committedly,

as partners and with joint responsibility or the community.

… Politics, administration, citizens and interest groups use public participation as a

means o communication.

… Public participation is part o the modern concept o politics and administration and

thus is an integral part o administration.

… Public participation is a core element o the transparent and citizen-oriented

administrative practice.

p r I n c I p l e s o f p u b l I c p a r t I c I p a t I o n

PrinciPleS of Public ParticiPation

Involvement

Politics and administration integrate the public in the development o their

policies, plans, programmes, or legal instruments. This may lead to jointly

supported solutions which can be implemented more smoothly.

Transparency and Traceability

As the process o public participation is transparent, also its results are traceable.

Transparency and traceability build condence in politics and administration.

Joint Responsibility

Public participation means or all participants to accept responsibility or the

jointly perormed work and its outcome. In this way both the quality o the out-

come and people’s identication with it can be improved.

Room for Manoeuvre

Public participation requires room or manoeuvre. At the outset o the process

all participants are exactly inormed about this scope. Participants are thus in aposition to judge their scope or infuence realistically.




9

Balance and Equal Opportunities

Within the clearly dened room or manoeuvre public participation processes

aim at oering their participating groups equal opportunities and equal scope

or infuence. All target groups are addressed in a balanced way. The participation

process is organised barrier-ree.

Mutual Respect

Public participation is a process o comprehensive involvement o the persons

aected by or interested in decisions on policies, plans, programmes, and legal

instruments. All participants are aware o their dierent roles in such a process.

They deal with each other respectully. This enhances the good cooperation o all

participants.

Fairness

The concerns o participants are taken seriously. Participants meet each other

in a climate o partnership. Argument and counter-argument are dealt with in

airness in public participation processes. A air way o dealing with each other

is the basis or ruitul cooperation.

Information

Taking into account the legal basis and possibilities the fow o inormation and

the access to inormation is guaranteed or all those interested.

Clear Language

In the process o public participation inormation and ramework conditions

are communicated and provided clearly and understandably. This acilitates

mutual understanding and avoids potential time lags, disappointment or otherdiculties in cooperation.



Deadlines

Public participation takes place at an early time. Prior to the decision there is

sucient time or inormation, consultation or cooperation. As a consequence,

participants are on the one hand oered eective scope or infuence. On the

other hand, time lags and additional costs which might arise rom subsequent

changes i participation takes place too late, can be avoided.

Organisation

For processes o public participation at the beginning the way o organisation as

well as the competences and contact persons within the administration are laid

down in a binding orm. This provides participants with the necessary clarity and

promotes eective and ecient working.

Decision and Feedback

The decision-makers take account o the results o the public participation process

in decision-making. ‘Take account’ means that they deal with the results respect-

ully and include them as ar as possible in the decision. The decision should

be communicated in a way taking reerence to the subject-matters o the public

participation process. In this way politics and administration can express their

appreciation o the participants’ contributions and build condence.

Legal Scope

Public participation takes place within the ramework o the Federal Constitution

and any other existing legal requirements. Where there is room or manoeuvre

concerning the design o public participation, the Standards o Public Participation

are to be applied.

PrinciPleS of Public ParticiPation




11

3 StandardS of

Public ParticiPation



StandardS for the PreParation of the ParticiPation ProceSS

I m

p l

e m

e n

t a t I o

n

c o

n s u l t a t I o n

c

o o p e r a t I o n

I n f o

r m

a t I o n

p r e p a

r a t I o

n

m

o

n

I t o

r I n

g

Did you choose methods or your participation process which are appropriate or the objective

and the public and which are comprehensible (e.g. internet interview, consultation process,

Round Table, consensus conerence 2, etc.)? Did you take care in your choice o methods to

reach as many as possible o the persons concerned and interested, or example through an

appropriate combination o methods?

Did you – especially in the case o cooperative public participation – use a proessional acilitator

who is responsible or the organisation and moderation o the participation process? Did you

clariy the distribution o tasks and unctions?

Has been dened when you would involve the public? You should involve the public as early

as possible, when all options are open.

Did you prepare a ow chart and a time schedule or the public participation process? Did you

consider the refection on and the documentation o your experiences in this context (c. 3.3,

page 22)? Did you provide a buer or unexpected aairs in your time schedule? Did you

adapt the time schedule to any procedural deadlines and to the points in time when the

decision is to be taken?

Did you provide well-balanced inormation on the subject o the procedure or participants?

Did you present the inormation most important to participants in a short summary?

Did you prepare a concept on the participation process which contains inormation about the

above-mentioned issues and which is attached to the invitation or public participation?

Did you coordinate the concept regarding the participation process with those with political

responsibilities? Did you ensure their political commitment or your public participation

process?

Did you nd an agreement with the political decision-makers as regards the taking into

account o the results o the participation process in the decision? Taking into account means

that they will deal with the results respectully and will include them in the decision as ar as

possible. Should this not be possible in each case, deviating decisions have to be explained

clearly.

P 6

P 7

P 8

P 9

P 10

P 11

P 12

P 13

2 For more detailed information, see:- Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management and Federal Chancellery (ed. ),

Arbter, Kerstin (2009): Praxisleitfaden zu den Standards der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung (Version March 2009, Vienna)(www.partizipation.at/standards_oeb.html)

- Arbter, K., Handler, M., Purker, E., Tappeiner, G., Trattnigg, R. ( 2007): The Public Participation Manual – Shaping the

Future Together- www.partizipation.at/methods.html; www.partizipation.at/casehistories.html




15

In a process o public participation inormative, consultative and cooperative public participation

can be planned either individually or in combination with each other with the relevant standards

to be applied in each o these cases.

I, in your participation process, you combine inormation and consultation or inormation,

consultation and cooperation – which oten happens in practical lie –, you should use the

relevant corresponding standards (see also chapter 3.2. o the German-language practical guide

on the Standards o Public Participation).

3.2 standards fo r the ImplementatIon of th e partIcIpatIon process

I m p l e m e n t a t I o n

m o n I t o r I n g a n d e v a l u a t I o n

p r e p a r a t I o n



3 .2 . 1 s t a n d a r d s f o r I n f o r m a t I v e p u b l I c p a r t I c I p a t I o n

( I n f o r m a t I o n )

StandardS for the imPlementation of the ParticiPation ProceSS

I … for informative public participation

I m

p l

e m

e n

t a t I o

n

c o

n s u l t a t I o n

c

o o p e r a t I o n

I n f o

r m

a t I o n

p r e p a

r a t I o

n

m

o

n

I t o

r I n

g

Did you provide balanced inormation? Did you present the dierent aspects o

the topic?

Did you inorm the interested organised public actively, e.g. by email or by mail?

Did you tailor the inormation to the needs o the specifc target-groups? Did you

present complex acts and problems as clearly and understandably as possible (as

simply as possible – as comprehensively as necessary) ?

Did you adjust the means o communication to your target groups, also as regards

language? Did you use at least two dierent media or contacts with the broad

public, o which one is the internet?3

Did you keep your distribution lists up-to-

date?

Did you make sure that there is barrier-ree access to the inormation?

Did you give additional sources o inormation on the topic, or example studies,

internet links, media reports, events or experts on the topic? Do you cover the

range o expert opinions as ully as possible in this way?

Did you oer comprehensible reasons or decisions taken?

3 A well-considered combination of media raises the probability that you will really reach all your targetgroups.

I 1

I 2

I 3

I 4

I 5

I 6

I 7




17

3 .2 .2 s t a n d a r d s f o r c o n s u l t a t I v e p u b l I c p a r t I c I p a t I o n (c o n s u l t a t I o n )

Did you think o announcing the consultation process to your selected target

groups in time to allow sucient preparation?

Did you contact the interested organised public actively or that purpose, e.g. by

email or by mail?

Did you put a short, generally comprehensible summary o the topic and the

participation process in ront o the consultation material which allows the public

to decide whether they will participate or not?

Did you mention the subject-matter and the objectives o the consultation process?

Did you describe the decisions already taken (unchangeable acts) and the topics

o the consultation in a comprehensible manner to clariy where there is room or

manoeuvre?

Did you explain the background and the cause o the consultation? Did you explainwhy there is need or action concerning the development o the policies, plans,

programmes, and legal instruments? Did you provide background inormation

on your topic?

Did you explain which impacts the policies, plans, programmes, and legal instru-

ments could have and what would happen i they were not prepared?

Did you list the persons, agencies and organisations consulted? Did you state the

reasons o your choice? Did you ask or suggestions as to who else might be con-

sulted on the topic?

C 1

C 2

C 3

C 4

C 5

C 6

C 7

C 8

An n ou n cem ent o f th e Con su l ta t i on Process

Com pi l i ng th e Con su l ta t i on Ma ter i a l f o r Pa r t i c i pa n ts

C … for c onsultative public participation



Did you – i your topic is suited or doing so – ask participants concrete questions

on your drat or topic which you would like to have answered in any case?

Did you dene the data which those consulted are to provide in any case (e.g.

name, organisation etc.)? Did you point out that clear reasons o the commentsare to be given and, i possible, concrete alternatives are to be oered?

Did you dene whether the comments can be delivered by mail, by email, via an

internet page, by ax, by phone, or also personally?4

Did you give the name o at least one contact which is technically amiliar with the

drat or topic?

Did you mention the person or the agency where the comments have to be

delivered?

Did you set clear deadlines appropriate or the topic or the delivery o comments?

The period allowed or comments always has to be adjusted to the content and the

type o public participation. In most cases 6 to 12 weeks are appropriate.5 Did you

extend the period or comments by two weeks in the event that it alls in one o

the main vacation periods? I you have to shorten the period or comments, did

you explain this in a comprehensible way?

Did you explain how the process would continue ater the consultation round and

where you would make the comments delivered and the report on the consultation

process (c. C 24, page 19) publicly accessible?

Did you invite all target groups on an equal ooting to deliver comments?

Did you actively contact the interested organised public in this context?

Can the contact person mentioned be easily reached during the consultation period?

Has the respondent been suciently inormed on the topic? Has he/she taken

part in the participation process and does he/she have all relevant documents on

the topic?

4 Preference is to be given to written comments, as opinions delivered personally or by phone cause

greater administrative burden and have to be laid down exactly and unequivocally in writing.5 For certain topics, 4 weeks may be appropriate.


C 9

C 10

C 11

C 12

C 13

C 14

C 15

C 16

C 17

C 18

C 19

I m

p l

e m

e n

t a t I o

n

c o

n s u l t a t I o n

c

o o p e r a t I o n

I n f o

r m

a t I o n

p r e p a

r a t I o

n

m

o

n

I t o

r I n

g

I n v i ta t i on to D e l i v e r Com m ents

Ass i s ta n ce d u r i n g th e Con su l ta t i on Rou n d



Did you acknowledge receipt o each comment within one week?6

Did you make the comments you received publicly accessible right ater the endo the consultation period, provided they are not to be treated condentially?

Did you screen all comments veriably and completely?

Did you take into account the core statements o the comments? ‘Take into

account’ means that you review the dierent arguments brought orward in the

consultation rom the technical point o view, i necessary discuss them with the

participants, evaluate them in a traceable way, and then let them become part o

the considerations on the drating o your policy, your plan, your programme, or

your legal instrument.

Did you prepare a report to document the consultation process? Did you summa-

rise the comments received in this report and did you mention where they can be

accessed? Did you describe at least briefy and explain clearly which arguments

were accepted and which were not? Did you coordinate this report and the urther

procedure (e.g. publication) with the political decision-maker?

Did you publish the report on the consultation process as quickly as possible

ater the decision had been taken?

Ackn ow led g em ent o f Rece i p t f or Ea ch Com m en t

Screening and Taking into Account of the Comments 7


19

6 Whether this standard can be reached depends on the number of comments received and on whetherthey are delivered by email, internet page, mail, fax, phone, or personally.

7 The intensity for you to deal with the comments delivered will depend on the type of the participationprocess, the type and number of comments, and your resources.

C 20

C 21

C 22

C 23

C 24

C 25

Pu b l i ca t i on o f th e Com m en ts Rece i v ed

I n f orm a t i on on th e D ec i s i on




3 .2 .3 s t a n d a r d s f o r c o o p e r a t I v e p u b l I c p a r t I c I p a t I o n ( c o o p e r a t I o n )

Cooperative public participation processes may be designed in very dierent

ways. Common methods are or example consensus conerences, Round Table

meetings or planning cells (see also “The Public Participation Manual”8,

www.partizipation.at/methoden.html). Each o these methods provides or

specifc procedures and structures as regards participation. As a consequence,

also the quality standards dier widely. There are some standards, however,

which apply to all types o cooperative public participation.

8 Arbter, K., Handler, M., Purker, E., Tappeiner, G., Trattnigg, R. (2005): The Public Participation Manual –Shaping the future together (www.partizipation.at)

Co … for cooperative public participation

Did you tailor the selected method, i.e. the procedure and the structure or public

participation, to the needs o your specic tasks, to the target groups, the budget,

and the time-rame?

Did you assess how much time participation would require in the case o more

intense participation processes? Did you inorm participants about the expected

time expenditure when inviting them to participate in the process?

Did you plan and ensure the required internal resources (sta: time and

qualication, material etc.)?

Did you suciently appreciate voluntary work and the input o technical

know-how rom participants?

Did you agree about the mode or decision-making in the working group (e.g.

majority decisions, consensual decisions etc.)? Have provisions been made to

document and state the reasons o deviating opinions in writing?

Co 1

Co 2

Co 3

Co 4

Co 5

I m

p l

e m

e n

t a t I o

n

c o

n s u l t a t I o n

c

o o p e r a t I o n

I n f o

r m

a t I o n

p r e p a

r a t I o

n

m

o

n

I t o

r I n

g




21

Did you ensure that the acilitator treats all parties equally?

Did you make process agreements with the members o the working group, or

example on respectul dealing with one another, on task-sharing, the conden-

tiality and the representation o the working group vis-à-vis third parties, thedocumentation o the results during the process, the nal report and the com-

munication o the result to the decision-makers?

Did you determine in which way the broad public would be inormed about the

participation process, its outcome and the nal decision?

Did you document how the participation o the public inuenced the fnal decision

on the policy, the plan, the programme, or the legal instrument, and did you give

a reason in the event that not all results o the participation process were taken

into account?

Co 6

Co 7

Co 8

Co 9



3 .3 s t a n d a r d s f o r t h e m o n I t o r I n g a n d e v a l u a t I o n o f t h e p a r t I c I p a t I o n p r o c e s s

StandardS for the monitorinG and evaluation of the ParticiPation ProceSS

Did you document which measures o the policy, the plan, the programme, or the legal instru-

ment were already implemented and which were still pending ( monitoring concerning the

implementation)?

Did you document the experiences you made with your public participation process so they

can be considered or passed on in uture procedures (in the case o large processes maybe also

evaluation by an independent agency)? Did you think about to whom you might make your

documentation available and who might benet rom it?

Did you check whether you achieved the objectives o the public participation process?

Did you involve the public in the monitoring and the evaluation, e.g. through participation in

a monitoring group?

M 3

M 4

M 1

M 2

M … for monitoring

I m

p l

e m

e n

t a t I o

n

c o

n s u l t a t I o n

c

o o p e r a t I o n

I n f o

r m

a t I o n

p r e p a

r a t I o

n

m

o

n

I t o

r I n

g




23

definitionS4



The public is an open and unlimited circle o persons

comprising all members and organisational orms o a

society.

The term public encompasses individuals just as much

as groups o persons. Groups o persons may orm on

occasion (citizens’ initiatives, or example, orm

in most cases in connection with a concrete project

and have but a very loose internal organisational

structure) or with a specic long-term objective and

clear organisational structure (= organised public).Examples o the organised public are legally estab-

lished representations o interest such as the Chambers,

the Federal Youth Representatives or the Austrian

Senior Citizens’ Council, whose tasks are dened by law. Also organisations

o civil society are part o the organised public, but they are established on a

voluntary basis, or the long term, and independent o projects; examples are

human rights and environmental organisations (NGOs) as well as initiatives,

religious communities, The Federation o Austrian Industries, or the Austrian

Federation o Trade Unions. As opposed to the organised public the term

“broad public” relates to persons who are not united in more or less stronglyorganised groups, but rather advocate their individual interests.

definitionS of Public ParticiPation

Public participation means the chance o all those

concerned and/or interested to present and/or

stand up or their interests or concerns in the deve-lopment o plans, programmes, policies, or legal

instruments.

4.1 W h at I s p u b l I c p a r t I c I p a t I o n ?

4.2 W h o I s t h e p u b l I c ?




25

4 . 3 . 1 I n f o r m a t i v e P u b l i c P a r t i c i pa t i on( I n f o r m a t I o n ) :

4.3 I n t e n s I t y l e v e l s o f p u b l I c p a r t I c I p a t I o n

Intensity Levels of Public Participation

Participants receive inormation about the planning

or the decision. They do not have any infuence on

it, however. Communication is only one-way, namely

rom the planning or decision-making bodies tothe public.



4.3.3 Cooperat ive Pub l ic Par t ic ipat ion( c o o p e r a t I o n ) :

Participants have a say in the decision, or example

at Round Table meetings, in mediation procedures

or in stakeholder processes. The degree o in-

fuence is high and may include common decision-

making with the political decision-making bodies.

Planning or decision-making bodies and the publiccommunicate intensively with each other.


4.3 .2 Consul ta t ive Pub l ic Par t ic ipat i on(c o n s u l t a t I o n ) :

Participants can give their comments on a question

asked or a drat presented. They can thereby in-

fuence the decision, even though the extent o in-

fuence may dier considerably. Communication is

in both directions, rom the planning or decision-

making body to the public and back, as well as,

under certain circumstances, once again back to

the public, or example i comments received are

answered. Comments can be asked or also in an

early phase o the participation process, or exam-

ple via interviews. Also continuous, or example

quarterly, dialogues with selected target groups or

inormation exchange are considered consultative

public participation.




27

4.4 W h e r e t o a p p l y t h e s t a n d a r d s o f p u b l I c p a r t I c I p a t I o n

4.4.1 The Leve l of Pol i c ies

The policies level is the most abstract level o the planning and decision-making

hierarchy. The English term “policies”, as described in appropriate international

documents, encompasses strategies, visions and strategic concepts such as the

Austrian Climate Strategy, the national Action Plan or Employment, the Econo-

mic Guidelines or Austria or Austrian strategies to position the country on EU

level or international level. Policies are partly developed as a consequence o

recommendations on EU level to Member States to prepare national action

plans on certain issues.

The process o developing policies is not subject to any ormal requirements

and thus diers widely. Policies can be approved by the competent Minister or

by the Council o Ministers. Parliament is usually not involved. The dierentiation

between policies on the one hand and plans and programmes on the other hand

is dicult, however, and not always unambiguous. As policies are mostly ormu-

lated in a more abstract style than plans or programmes are, usually the orga-

nised public participates.

4.4.2 The Leve l of Plans and Prog ramme s

Plans and programmes have strategic character and usually comprise an entire

package o measures. Plans and programmes may provide or constructionmeasures just as much as or organisational measures. A transportation pro-

gramme, or example, may encompass measures or extending the rail and road

network as well as measures or trac abatement or or the shiting to public

means o transportation. Research promotion programmes or instance infu-

ence the scientic approach to specic topics and the development o science

in general. Strategic plans are less concrete than construction projects are. It is

not always possible to determine exactly who are those concerned. The more

abstract the content o plans or programmes is, the more likely is it that orms

o participation or the organised public – that is: the interest groups concerned

– prove successul. There are strategic plans in which both the broad public andthe organised public participate. The preparation o some plans and programmes

The Standards o Public Participation are to be applied where policies, plans,

programmes, and general legal instruments are developed.



is obligatory, or example that o waste management plans or zoning plans. There

are dierent legal requirements as regards public participation in plans and pro-

grammes. The process may end with an approval in the orm o an ordinance.

4.4.3 The Leve l of Gene ral Legal Inst rumen ts

Laws and ordinances are generally applicable legal instruments. They are legally

binding. Supplementary to the applicable reviewing rules o the Constitutional

Service o the Federal Chancellery, the Standards o Public Participation are to be

applied also when developing generally applicable legal instruments





29

benefitS5



benefitS of Public ParticiPation

High-quality public participation requires commitment, time, resources,

and energy as inputs – but it also produces numerous benefts and in the output

the investment may pay multiple dividends:

Public participation� involves those aected in

the search or results.

Public participation helps strengthen the� climate

o trust between politics, administration as well

as those concerned and participants.

Public participation raises people’s� interest in

political participation and osters lively demo-

cracy.

Public participation� activates; it makes those

concerned participants and dynamises develop-

ment processes and participation projects.

Public participation supports the community�

and mutual respect between politics, admi-

nistration and participants as well as among the

participants. Services rendered are to a greater

extent mutually recognised.

Participation processes are common� learning

processes and thus strengthen awareness-

raising.

Public participation makes the� values and atti-

tudes o participants as well as their interests

and needs visible.

Public participation osters the� comprehension

or dierent standpoints and or the problem to

be solved. The ow o inormation is improved.

The work o the administration is citizen-

oriented, solution-oriented and need-based.

The cooperation between public administration�

and interest groups concerned reduces the

pressure due to expectations and lobbying by

individual interest groups.

Public participation leads to� innovative

solutions, as all participants oer their know-

ledge, their practical experience and their

creativity.

Public participation acilitates the� development

o an accepted strategy. It osters long-term

solutions and thereore ensures planning

security.

Public participation� designs decision-making

processes in a way that they are transparent and

traceable.

In processes o public participation the� felds

o competence o the participating groups are

clearly described and perceived.

Public participation allows the involvement o �

the public in the process o decision-making.

Results can thus be accepted and backed ona broader basis. Thanks to the intensive co-

operation participants can identiy themselves

better with the result.

The intensive exchange between all participants�

permits the integration o dierent points o

view, which improves the backing o results. In

this way public participation also contributes to

quality assurance and easier implementation.

This means that public participation can havetime- and cost-saving eects.



Michael Kallinger –Austrian Federal [email protected]: 01-531 15-7148

31

The “Standards o Public Participation” were developed by an inter-ministerial working group withthe participation o representations o interest, NGOs and external technical experts as part o a projectcommissioned by the Austrian Federal Chancellery and the Austrian Federal Ministry o Agriculture,Forestry, Environment and Water Management. On 2 July 2008 they were adopted by the AustrianCouncil o Ministers.

The fo l lowing Austr ian author i t ies and agenc ies par t ic ipated in the working group:Federal Chancellery�

Federal Ministry o Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management�

Federal Ministry o Transport, Innovation and Technology�

Federal Ministry o Health, Family and Youth�

Federal Ministry o Science and Research�

Federal Ministry o Education, Arts and Culture�

Federal Ministry o Social Aairs and Consumer Protection�

Federal Ministry o Deence�

Federal Ministry or the Interior�

Federal Ministry or European and International Aairs�

Federal Ministry o Finance�

Federal Ministry or Economic and Labour Aairs�

Chamber o Labour�

Economic Chamber�

Ökobüro�

Caritas�

Austrian Senior Citizens’ Council�

Parliamentary Administration – Division Inormation and Publication within the Parliamentary�

Scientic ServiceVienna University o Economics and Business Administration, Institute or Austrian and European�

Public LawBüro Arbter�

41 inst i tut ions commented on the dra f t Standards of Publ ic Par t ic ipat ion.In addition to the above-mentioned institutions, these were:ADA – Austrian Development Agency�

AGEZ – Working group or development cooperation�

Oce o the Provincial Government o Salzburg�

Oce o the Provincial Government o Styria�

Oce o the Provincial Government o the Tyrol�

Working group e-participation / e-democracy under the direction o the Federal Chancellery�

Federal Ministry or Legal Aairs�

The Federation o Austrian Industries�

Joanneum RESEARCH�

Rural Development Styria�

Directorate o the Vienna City Administration�

Members o the strategy group� “Partizipation”Red Cross�

The World o NGOs�

Federal Environment Agency�

Verein Lokale Agenda 21 in Vienna�

Externa l process management and technica l support :Kerstin Arbter, Büro Arbter – Consulting Engineers, www.arbter.at

Project leaders and contact persons:

Rita Trattnigg – Austrian Federal Ministry of Agriculture,Forestry, Environment and Water [email protected]: 01-515 22-1309

Oebs Standards Engl Finale Web

Documents

Transcript of Oebs Standards Engl Finale Web