A couple of weeks ago I along with 250 other delegates took part in what is now the annual URBACT “bash”. This is my second or indeed third and I still haven’t worked out what the purpose of the event is. The majority of the delegates are from URBACT funded projects, indeed the programme pays for the flight and accommodation costs for the lead partner and expert from every network and working group. Plus there is of course there are members of the monitoring committee, which includes DG Regio staff. Throw in the Urbact Secretariat, invited speakers/contributors and the staff from the company responsible for the logistics and the programme is probably paying for two-thirds of delegates.
Initially, I had thought that the purpose of the event was bringing together all key stakeholders/actors and undertake some kind of review or reflection together. After all the Monitoring Committee, which approves projects never really gets to see what impact (positive, or negative) their decisions have had. Unfortunately the event is not about that.
If the aim is to promote the URBACT, then it seems to be doing that largely to those who are already well aware of the programme. In fact, owing to my own confusion, I decided to ask some delegates what they were expecting from the day.
I visualize programmes such as URBACT like one of those big cruise ships. On the upper deck are the decision makers and programme direction givers. In the middle deck are the “spectators”. These are few people from outside the programme who come along to the annual event and the “professional tourists” that accompany such programmes. In the cargo deck are the people responsible for getting projects implemented. For this reason, I have always perceived myself as being part of the “cargo class” in such programmes.
This year my internal visualisation was borne out dramatically. Myself, along with over 150 other delegates, all of who had travelled for hours to arrive on the day before the “bash”, only to find on arrival that we were simply cargo class in that we had been put into storage on a couple of industrial estates near the airport where there were hotels, who know doubt make their money on the back of flight cancellations, thus providing airlines with self-storage units dressed up as hotels.
Being "cargo class" also meant that there was no public transport to speak of. Taxi's would only come if they had nothing else to do or if you paid to be taxied into the city some 20 kms away. Depending on traffic, this could cost you 90 euro’s (non claimable). Our cargo class status thus meant that we were dependent on a fleet of coaches. What this also meant is that having travelled from various points in Europe , we were then –re-directed for our evening meal to the fantastic Swedish Opera House , but which took a 50 minute bus ride.
Having undertaken this trek we were then treated to a spectacle of postage stamp size pieces of food arranged a la nouvelle cuisine except that there was no cuisine-it was simply some appetizers. As the equally petit desert started arriving it became clear that we had had dinner. On top of this, there was no alcohol served with the "dinner". When I arrived on the last bus, I was accosted by people saying that there was no alcohol. There was an air of incredulity especially as it dawned on some people who were slurping away on what they thought was rosé wine only to find that it was cranberry cordial. Faced with a mounting sense of non-belief, the URBACT secretariat relented and provided some alcohol to quell the possibility of a cargo class and upper deck class revolt.
In order that we were tucked up in our cargo hold on time, our buses ensured that no one stayed to long. In keeping with our status we were all given automatic alarm calls in our rooms, and then transported by bus for 80 minutes to arrive exhausted at the venue for the big day.
Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining about the quality of the hotel room or even of the food . I am complaining about being treated as cargo class especially as those who fall into this category are infact the body and bones of the programme. Our time, the quality of our experience was simply not a factor in the planning. Worse, the waste of human energy and generation of unnecessary CO2 signalled a total failure to factor in these costs. It has to be also said in contrast to those of us in the cargo-class, the cargo handlers/managers (URBACT Secretariat, Monitoring Committee, EC reps) all stayed in the conviviality of urban Stockholm.
Still having got that out of my system let me turn to the big event itself. The aim we were told was to ensure debate and discussion. This clearly happened in the most of the workshops. However, there was no discussion or debate in long plenary session billed as "Local Support Group Master Class". This was as riveting as watching wallpaper. The whole purpose escaped me and furthermore, who would run their LSG in the way we saw.
The Urban Café slot , again a generous time slot , was for some unclear reason split into "national" or "same language" groups. Leaving that aside there was some good discussion in the group that I was part of BUT there was no "carry forward". We spoke, we wrote and then nothing.
Along with this blog there is in fact some short clips I took of the discussion in the Café. The aim, and perhaps this is the main purpose of the event, is to announce “winners” of the URBACT lucky draw. That is to say those proposals that have been selected for funding. I say “lucky draw” because it becomes increasingly clear that the “independent” evaluation panel established by the programme and the process it uses for undertaking the evaluation is producing poor quality decisions by giving high scores to proposals that are patently poor quality.
The chairman of the URBACT monitoring committee, Josef Postranecky began the day by emphasising values and principles that sent a warm glow I think to all participants. He spoke of the need for “transparency” as one of the guiding values and principles of the programme. Little did he realise as he read from the script that the URBACT secretariat, I assume, had prepared for him that the issue of “transparency” sadly remains opaque in the programme. Just two instances that relate directly to the event. One of the workshops focussed on the feedback from the two pilot Fast Track projects launched jointly by Urbact with the EC. At no point in the feedback process were delegates informed that one of the pilots had run into such great difficulties that it had effectively “failed”. A real commitment to transparency would have meant an honest analysis of what went wrong. Indeed, maybe its failure could have been instructive as learning tool.
Instead, delegates were fed a fantasy version which again questions the way in which the cargo –class is seen in the programme. Are we considered unable to discuss failure?
During the event, the results of the second call were also announced. URBACT 2 has in fairness established what is referred to as an independent evaluation panel. However, the composition and way of working of then panel remains opaque. For example, the chair of the panel is the previous Director within DG Regio who was responsible for setting up of the URBACT programme. How is it possible to claim independence when it’s your own product that is being evaluated? Independence requires greater integrity and there is an inherent conflict of interest in having anyone from the EC involved in the “independent” evaluation panel that was responsible for the programme.
There are also questions over who gets selected by the Secretariat. It seems again a conflict of interest to entrust the selection of independent evaluators to the secretariat who are in effect in the pay of the secretariat. It’s the case of the regulated paying the regulators. Furthermore, the Urbact Secretariat keeps secret the names of these independent evaluators. Why is that? Surely we as peers are entitled to know at least who is undertaking the evaluation. The reason for secrecy may also be due to who the Urbact Secretariat actually selects. For example, it has become common knowledge in the Urbact Community that one of the evaluators was a previous employee of the Urbact Secretariat that hardly constitutes an “independent” person.
Still leaving aside this aspect, there is also a lack of transparency over how proposals are finally selected. In the Operational Manuel, there are 25 criteria outlined for the evaluation. However, the criteria are not weighted; instead they are clustered into sub- groups which are then allocated a maximum score. All seems very good expect that it’s a system that produces patently bad decisions. The system allows high scores to be given despite the fact that there is really no added- value to the proposals that get recommended for approval.
The results of the second call provide a classic example of mediocracy and poor quality triumphing over innovation . In response to the second call three proposals ( one for a working group and two for thematic networks) were submitted for the same priority: “Integrated development of deprived areas & areas at risk of deprivation”.
One proposal for a working group which simply will produce “guidelines” ..another handbook to join the masses which already exist. This was approved. The Second Proposal was for a thematic network which will produce an “…integrated socio-economic urban rehabilitation model, which….. will be a common strategy adopted by the partner cities, and will be disseminated as a guidebook for European small and medium sized cities.
I am assuming that here the evaluators are working on the assumption that it will be the nine mayors of these cities that will be actively taking part AND that they understood what an “integrated socio-economic urban rehabilitation model” is. This was also approved.
The third proposal offered "the real - time development of a public space in the lead partners' municipality as the basis for a transnational exchange.” A real time development with €7,000,000 already allocated as the basis for the exchange of experience and development of good practice. The proposal incorporated key innovative methodologies focussing on Community-based planning; Cultural planning and Street Reclaiming. Alongside this the other partner cities have the redevelopment of a defined public space within their local development plans and wanted to participate as this offered a real chance for learning “ by doing". Needless to say this proposal was not approved.
So what did I get out of the event. For sure, I was able to meet people and talk informally. I enjoyed meeting colleagues and friends. I very much enjoyed the workshop that I co-hosted and indeed it was comments from this workshop that underlined my own thoughts on some operational aspects of the programme that need attention. Content wise , however it was uninspirational. But I have also come back from Stockholm with a view that Quality and Transparency remain problematic in the programme.
If you wish to read my more detailed reflections on what needs to change in the URBACT programme please click here: http://haroon07.blogspot.com/2009/12/urbact-need-for-adjustmentchange.html
Haroon Saad, Lead Expert MILE and Director QeC-ERAN.
No comments:
Post a Comment