The Körnerpark Quartiersmanagement in Neukolln, Berlin: Governance of a Community-Led Local...

Pietro L. VergaGran Sasso Science Institute

[email protected]

Erkner, August 19th 2015

Governance of a Community-Led Local Development Initiative

The Kornerpark Quartiersmanagementin Neukolln, Berlin

Index

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY

KÖRNERPARK CASE STUDY DESCRIPTION

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

CONCLUSIONS

Dissertation’s AimsState of the ArtDissertation’s Research Questions

Case Study Selection CriteriaSelected Case Studies | Körnerpark Quartiersmanagement, Berlin; Magdolna Quarter Programme, BudapestResearch Operations

Overview of the Körnerpark Neighbourhood | Description, Facts, Needs and ProblemsOverview of the QM Programme | Concept, Aims, and Funding SchemesKörnerpark Governance Framework | Top-Down & Bottom-Up Dimensions

INTRODUCTION CASE STUDYDESCRIPTION

PRELIMINARYFINDINGS CONCLUSIONS

Overall Dissertation Aims

Critically examine the Governance structures and Outcomes of two ERDF-Funded community-led

development initiatives concerning deprived urban neighbourhoods.

This will be studied in relation to the Community-Led Local Development Framework (CLLD)

introduced by the European Commission for the Programming Period 2014-2020.

METHODOLOGY



State of the Art - The Policy Focus

METHODOLOGY

What is Community-Led Local Development (CLLD)?

• An Instrument tackling specific subregional areas between 10,000 to 150,000 people (including URBAN-type policies for deprived urban neighbourhoods)

• supposed to be led by local action groups composed of representatives of public and private local socio-economic interests, in which any group represents more than 49 % of the voting rights

• carried out through integrated and multi-sectoral area-based local development strategies

• designed taking into consideration local needs and potential, and include innovative features in the local context, networking and, where appropriate, cooperation

(source: EU COM, 2013)



State of the Art

METHODOLOGY

European Regional Policy: Better coherence of territorial development at diffeent levels and greater role of citizens in policy process (EU COM, 2001); territorial cohesion, concerns for social welfare and equity, sustainability and good governance (Faludi, 2007); Principle of subsidiarity, reorganisation of powers and multiplication of actors (Kazepov, 2010); principle of partnership, anchoring policy in society (Kamlage, 2008); governance and innovation (Eizaguirre et al., 2012); Community-Led Local Development (EU COM, 2014; Soto & Ramsden, 2014)

European urban policies: consensual policies emerging form dialogue between EU COM and NGOs (Atkinson, 2002); Cities of Tomorrow (EU COM, 2011); Ex-post evaluation of URBAN I (Carpenter, 2006); European best-practices for socially sustainable urban regeneration (Colantonio & Dixon, 2011); Urban Development In The EU: 50 Projects Supported By The European Regional Development Fund During the 2007-2013 Period (Ramsden, Colini 2013); Against Divided Cities (Colini, Czischke, Güntner, Ramsden, Tosic 2013)

Institutional forms of public participation: adequate and equal opportunities (Dahl, 1982); inclusion in the deliberative decision-making (Habermas, 1992; Payne & Samhat, 2004; Kamlage, 2008); empowerment of citizens with tailored - and threfore more effective - interventions (Craig & Porter, 2006; Powell, 2007; Kazepov, 2010); enhance decision-making efficiency and democratic legitimacy (Lindgren & Persson, 2011)

Critical approach to participation: Community control does not necessarily lead towards greater popular participation (Purcell, 2006); citizenship in the EU as an elitist practice due to the complexity of the policy-making process (Magnette, 2001); domination of professional and political forms of knowledge (Atkinson, 2002); governance as the rise of heterarchy and the diffusion of power, but it can also reinforce hierarchies and mask underlying power relations (Bache, 2010)



State of the Art - Gaps in the Debate

METHODOLOGY

Policy analysis and research show a gap in thorough empirical analysis about the community-led local

development (CLLD) as promoted by the EU, and in particular about its efficacy in terms of more

democratic, inclusive, integrated and efficient planning of neighbourhood regeneration initiatives.



Dissertation’s Research Questions

METHODOLOGY

Empirically analysing two selected case studies that are considered model example of best practice by the

EU in order to understand:

» What have been the limits and potentials of these experiences, and why these case studies can be

considered a good example upon which to design future CLLD programmes?

» Does this multilevel governance framework allow the rise of heterarchy and the diffusion of power or

rather does it reinforce hierarchies and underlying power relations?

how roles and powers are distributed across players at different territorial levels?

how do these players interact among each other?

» To what extent are these initiatives effectively community-led?


PRELIMINARYFINDINGS CONCLUSIONSMETHODOLOGY

Case Study Selection Criteria

1) EU Cohesion Policy Framework 2007-2013 and ERDF Co-Financing

2) Relevance as Best-Practices within the European Debate

3) Addressing Deprived Urban Neighbourhoods through a Participatory Approach

4) Comparable with the current CLLD Framework:

a) Based on a Strategy and Action Plan addressing Local Needs & Potentials

b) Priorities are the Physical, Economic and Social Regeneration

c) Governance Framework comparable to Local Action Groups

d) Process of Community Involvement in the Formulation of the Strategy

Selected Case Studies



Körnerpark Quartiersmanagement, Berlin

» aimed at social and economic rehabilitation of a

deprived neighbourhood

» area-based integrated approach

» coordinated by professional Neighbourhood

Management organisation (Quartiersmanagement)

» Neighbourhood Councils as a platform for public

participation, whose features resemble CLLD’s

Local Action Groups

» has been taken by the EU as an example of best-

practice of the CLLD approach, and also awarded

with the RegioStar 2013 Prize

Magdolna Quarter Programme, Budapest

» aimed at physical, social and economic

regeneration of a deprived neighbourhood, main

focus on housing rehabilitation

» area-based, integrated and comprehensive

approach

» managed by a publicily-owned, locally-based

professional rehabilitation company (REV8)

» Neighbourhood Association aimed at

channelling the interests of different groups to

REV8, creating a forum for NGOs, and developing

networks of stakeholders

» has been taken by the EU as an example of best-

practice



Research Operations

1) Official Documents

2) Official Socio-Demographic Data

3) EU reports and Academic Literature on Case Studies

4) Semi-Structured Interviews to Actors Involved in the Case Studies at Different Territorial Levels

5) One Open Interview of 45 minutes to the author of the CLLD guidelines

6) In-Field Explorations of the Target-Areas

METHODOLOGY



QM BerlinTotal Population 12.219 3.517.424Migration Backgorund 54,54% 26,99%Unemployed 34,50% 13,97%Long-Term Unemployed 8,91% 5,71%

Data as of 31.12.2013 - Source QM Kornerpark

» classified as highly problematic intervention area

» weak socio-economic framework

» weak business framework and high rate of vacant shops

» language barrier is a challenge for both adults and children

» coexistence of differences as potential trigger for conflicts

(Source: QM Körnerpark)

An Overview of Körnerpark



An Overview of the Quartiersmanagement Programme

METHODOLOGY

» Launched in 2005, has been funded by ERDF for PPs 2006-2013 and 2014-2020

» Main philosophy: “We try to put different groups in contact among each other and try to develop projects that might be appealing for many interest groups at the same time”

(Dr Astrid Tag, Director of QM-Team)

» Selected 4 strategic priorities (among the 9 identified by SIC Berlin):• More Opportunities in the Labour Market• More Education and Training• Social and Cultural Integration• Participation of Residents and Stakeholders

» Implemented a threefold set of measures:• Intercultural & education programmes• Physical restoration / construction of public facilities• Temporary re-use of abandoned shops



Körnerpark QM Governance Framework

METHODOLOGY



The Top-Down Dimension: Key Actors and Roles

1) European Commission: » provides the regulation and co-financing through the European Regional Development Fund

2) National Government: » negotiates with the EU for the usage of ERDF funding » defines the Federal Soziale Stadt Programme’s aims, requirements and criteria » direct provider of funding for QMs’ activities

3) State of Berlin - SenWTF: » has the role of Managing Authority for the ERDF » responsible for the coordination of SIC Berlin with the Federal Soziale Stadt Programme » direct provider of funding for QMs’ activities

4) State of Berlin - SenStad (functional sub-dept. of SenWTF): » responsible for the implementation of SIC Berlin » responsible for the identification, prioritisation and monitoring of the target areas » responsible for the selection and appointment of QM-Teams

5) PSS: » external service provider responsible for appraisal & conformity controls, support & conslutation, and

reporting

METHODOLOGY

The Top-Down Dimension: Interactions among Players





The Bottom-Up Dimension: Key Actors and Roles

1) Local Residents, and Organisations: » either beneficiaries, promoters, or carriers of projects » allowed to take part in the decision-making process, through QM’s participatory bodies

2) Strong Partners: institutions or organisations already active and deply rooted in the area that have a permanent seat in the Neighbourhood Council. In Kornerpark these are the 3 schools and the Nachbarschaftsheim (Neighbourhood Centre)

3) Quartiersmanagement Team: » composed by 5 professionals from Mieterberatung Prenzlauer Berg » in charge for the establishment of community representation bodies » and for the coordination of the design and implementation of the local strategy and action plan

4) District of Neukölln » holds formal responsibility for the management of Soziale Stadt monies and their distribution

towards local QMs » in charge for collecting projects’ bureaucratic documentation and appointing project carriers » entitled to present and implement projects within Quartiersfunds framework

5) SenStadt » responsible for the coordination of the interactions among and the operations of all the involved

territorial levels » responsible for the final decision over QF 4 and 5 and Baufond and Netzwerkfond projects

METHODOLOGY



The Bottom-Up Dimension: Decision-Making Bodies

1) Action Fund Jury: » community-controlled participatory-budgeting body » open to every inhabitant over 16 years of age » holds full decision-making power over former QF 1 and current Aktionsfond projects, up to

€10,000 per year

2) Neighbourhood Council: » community-based participatory-planning body » composed by 10+3 elected residents and 8 appointed delegates from local institutions and

organisations » contributes to identify local needs and priorities and to formulate projects » holds full decision-making power over former QF 2 and 3 and current Projektsfond projects » holds veto power over former QF 4 and 5 and current Baufonds and Netzwerkfunds projects

3) Steering Committee: » Quartiersmanagement’s oversight body » composed by the QM-Team Director and by the QM Coordinators at Senate and District Level » verifies the eligibility of project proposals » decides how to finance each project and how to select the project carrier

METHODOLOGY



The Bottom-Up Dimension: Interactions among Players

METHODOLOGY



The Active Participation of Local Residents is Limited

The authonomy of choice of the local community is limited only to QF1/Aktionsfonds, that is to projects

worth no more than €1,500 for a maximum of €10,000 per year

The government representatives have the priviledge of acting as gatekeepers (cfr. Kamlage, 2008):

» the SenStadt appoints QM-Teams, often choosing between a small number of professional companies

that apply

» For each project the Steering Committee decides the type of funding to be adopted, and consequently

the extent of community-control over each project

METHODOLOGY



The Neighbourhood Council Tends to Be Dominated by Elites

» The Nachbarschaftsheim and two Cultural Voluntary Registered Associations are at the same time members of the NC and the major project carriers, accounting toghether for the 36.8% of all projects approved by the NC. Consequently an issue of conflict of interests may rise

METHODOLOGY

» Roughly 30 residents out of a population of nearly 12,000 regularly participate to Neighbourhood Council elections (Source: interviews to A. Tag and to B. Heeb)

» Even if migrants account for 54.5% of the total population they are rarely involved. The residents’ component of the NC includes 10+3 members: 7 women, 6 men; 3 with migration background (23%)

» Since local residents are not evenly represented, also the definition of local needs and priorities might be influenced by more powerful elites/groups



Professionals Forms of Knowledge Tend to Dominate

METHODOLOGY

» Access to funding is limited by strict and complex bureaucratic requirements that need professional competencies (Source: interviews with S. Bott; R. Oltersdorf; B. Heeb)

» Only the 11.1% of Project Carriers are local residents or associations of residents



Rising Heterarchy of Reinforced Hierarchies?

“Participatory governance does not in itself encourage citizens to become active, because the policy-making process remains highly complex [and thus] citizenship in the EU is likely to remain an elitist practice”

(Magnette, 2001)

“Participation of residents [...] does not mean participation in policy-making and political decision-making on a level where the actual causes of local decline and the unavailability of good jobs might get addressed”

(Mayer, 2011)

METHODOLOGY



Further Path of Analysis:

» Understanding the types of actions and the disciplinary fields of the projects implemented by the QM

» Verifying whether these projects are capable of addressing the causes of the neighbourhood’s “downward

spiral”

METHODOLOGY

Ich danke Ihnen sehrfür Ihre Aufmerksamkeit!

The Körnerpark Quartiersmanagement in Neukolln, Berlin: Governance of a Community-Led Local...

Documents

Transcript of The Körnerpark Quartiersmanagement in Neukolln, Berlin: Governance of a Community-Led Local...