Report from another forum

The second mini-citizen assembly dealt with the strategic development of Belgrade in the next 20 years

In an attempt to test how the formats of deliberative democracy can be useful for a deeper and more intensive participation of citizens in the development and shaping of the city, we organized the second mini citizens' assembly on the topic General urban plan of Belgrade until 2041. This time it is a plan which, unlike the general and detailed regulation plans, is the most important strategic plan for a city and is made for a longer period - in the case of Belgrade, for 20 years. In the hierarchy of plans, namely, the GUP is the umbrella document when it comes to the urban development of the city and it prescribes guidelines that are spatially elaborated in more detail through other plans of a lower order: General Regulation Plan (GRP), Detailed Regulation Plans (PDR) and Urban Projects (UP) ) that must be aligned with it. 

At the time of the assembly, there was only the Decision on the development of the plan ("Official Gazette of the City of Belgrade", No. 74/2019), but not the proposal for the concept of the plan, although this document was supposed to be adopted in 2021. Due to the importance of this planning document and breaking the deadlines for its adoption, the second mini civil assembly was dedicated to identifying the problems we face in the city from 4 areas - Planning of green areas in the city; Distribution of public purposes; Spatial development and expansion of the city; Development of traffic in the city - as well as the definition of fair principles for solving those problems, which can be found in the upcoming GUP. Due to the scope of the plan, we organized the assembly over two Saturdays - January 29 and March 5, 2022 - in an online format, due to the then current epidemiological measures. 

Designing a participatory discussion on more abstract solutions, which the GUP level imposes, was an additional challenge in the case of the second forum. Given that the territory covered by the plan was much wider this time, and with the aim of making the participants relevant and representative, 40 participants were recruited from among (inactive) citizens of Belgrade, through cooperation with the public opinion research agency. In addition to the citizens, this time, due to the previous refusal to participate, the representatives of the Urban Planning Institute were not invited as planners. In addition to citizens, experts from the field of urban and spatial planning, green and traffic infrastructure also participated. 

The second mini civil assembly on the topic of the future strategic development of Belgrade produced consensual principles and goals in the areas discussed. Bearing in mind that the character of the plan is strategic, as well as that the forum was organized before the existence of the concept of the plan, these principles were basic, but relevant for the future planning solution. As before, these results were sent to the developer of the plan - the Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade, and a meeting was held with representatives of the team working on the plan. The proposals were sent to the Secretariat for Urban Planning and Construction of the City of Belgrade and the Office of the City Planner and the President of the Planning Commission. However, the concept of the plan, which was presented at an early public inspection in June 2022, did not reflect the proposed goals and principles of the citizens. Comments were submitted during early public comment, including those based on forum results. Up to this moment, public inspection of the draft of this plan has not yet been organized.

Regardless of the absence of reactions from the competent institutions to the proposals presented by the citizens themselves, our collective, through each individual mini-citizen's assembly, is convinced again and again that in the field of urban planning there is no doubt that the citizens, with adequate support from experts, are equipped with an understanding of their own (common) needs and how they can be translated into spatial solutions and that the proposals are obtained through such formats in which it is possible to confront different positions and arguments, but also equal expression and discussion, can receive more legitimate decisions that are more in accordance with what we can interpret as public interest. Also, we have the impression that both citizens and experts, as well as us, members of the Ministry of Space collective, are transforming and learning together through these processes, towards a more authentic democratic political culture.