When we started the cooperation with the City Council to deliver the first citizens’ assembly of Budapest, we did not know exactly what we could expect. What will participants think about the process and what will they expect to get out of it? How will the city’s administration react to the citizens’ assembly and will they have ownership of it? And last but not least, what will they do with the recommendations?
A citizens’ assembly can achieve its goal and be successful if everyone involved has ownership of the process: it needs the commitment of the decision makers, the professional contribution of the experts and the active participation and cooperation of the participants.
A citizens’ assembly is about dialogue. During the preparations, the organisers are tailoring the question to be discussed by the assembly together with the decision makers, while at the same time involving all relevant stakeholders. Experts and the organisers co-create the programme and facilitators work out the concrete agenda of the assembly days, bearing in mind the need for smooth discussion. But most of all, a citizens’ assembly is about dialogue and cooperation between decision makers and the community.
A citizens’ assembly is the most successful, when it has actual consequences. When the decision maker really hears out the community and actually does something with their message. It is therefore especially important, and it has to be made clear at the beginning of the process, what the level of commitment of the decision maker is with regards to the recommendations of the assembly.
A general minimum requirement from the decision makers is typically a public reaction to the recommendations of the community. Which recommendations will they incorporate in their policy agenda? How recommendations will be taken into consideration during the preparation of policy choices? How will they ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the community?
Aside from the COVID-situation, the timing of the Budapest CA was ideal: the new administration of Budapest was prepared to revise the different policy areas and practices, while climate change was becoming an increasingly burning issue. The city administration declared a climate emergency in November 2019 and started reviewing the city’s climate strategy.
After lengthy brainstorming and planning, the objective was defined: the leadership of Budapest was seeking an answer to the question of what steps the residents of Budapest think should be taken to keep the city liveable and to take up the fight against climate change in the most effective way possible.
And, during the preparations of the CA, the city administration promised to incorporate the CA recommendations into the city’s new climate strategy, on which the Budapest council assembly would vote early 2021.
How should Budapest tackle the climate emergency?
After multiple months of preparation, the CA started its work in mid-September 2020 with its members convening over the course of two weekends. As a result of four days of intensive work, members of the assembly handed over eight recommendations to the decision makers.
The draft of the new climate strategy was then published in January 2021 and is subject to public consultation until 19 February 2021.
We were of course curious how the city administration incorporated the recommendations of the assembly into the strategy, so we took a closer look at it. István Bart and Márk Honti, the lead experts of the CA were helping us with the analysis.
Looking at the published material, we were delighted to see that the city administration dedicated a separate chapter to the topic of public involvement, and that they enabled citizens to express their opinions on the different issues in the city related to climate and environmental protection.
The draft strategy includes the results of several representative surveys, non-representative online mini-questionnaires, and the results of three working group meetings held during the development of the Integrated Urban Development Strategy, with the involvement of civil society organisations (DemNet also taking part in one of the working groups), covering three different topic areas.
The draft of the climate strategy also elaborates on the CA’s background and its recommendations, with reference to the relevant measures of the strategy that address the given recommendations.
It is important to note at this point that the CA’s remit was not to develop detailed rules or regulations. The CA was only set to provide guidance for the city administration, it had to give recommendations on what the main action points should be. The development of details is of course the job of the experts and decision makers. Keeping this in mind, we also looked at how the new climate strategy plans to turn each CA recommendation into concrete action.
How are the Budapest CA recommendations incorporated in the climate strategy?
Recommendation 1 of the CA – 97% supported: Budapest should support the energy modernisation of residential buildings. It should on the one hand provide financial support with at least a 30% grant and a 0% loan. On the other hand, the city should set up an expert advisory group and consultancy office to perform free audits, give advice and calculate the costs of efficiency upgrades.
Relevant part of the climate strategy: The goals of the measure ‘Energy modernisation of residential buildings’ (M3) are in line with the CA recommendation nr. 1.
The measure recognises the problems, lays out the main focus areas in detail and refers to the Budapest council’s future cooperation with established renovation consultancy offices.
The measure remains generic in terms of execution and the applied financial scheme.
Recommendation 2 of the CA – 94% supported: Budapest should increase the green spaces along roadside areas through different measures such as planting of grass, and native or non-invasive shrub and tree species, reducing parking spaces, offering compensation in return for loss of parking spaces. Measures should also include eg. green walls and green roofs, greening of inner courtyards, greening of noise barriers, greening between tram rails, running plants on house walls, covering bus stops with vines.
Relevant part of the climate strategy: Measure A1 aims at the increase of green spaces, however not explicitly alongside roads. The greening of parking spaces and other, currently built-up areas is only mentioned rather figuratively.
Measure A2 aims at increasing the per capita size of green spaces one and a half times of their current size.
Recommendation 3 of the CA – 91% supported: Budapest should develop public transport for the greater Budapest area with a unified ticketing system, that is harmonised with and supported by carpooling, bus lanes, and P+R and B+R car and bike parks.
Relevant part of the climate strategy: Measure M11 addresses traffic management, the designation of low emission zones and the development of P+R car parks. Its goals correspond to the ones formulated by the CA.
However, it does not contain concrete measures, only repeats what earlier plans of the city stated, and lists relevant possibilities and competences of the capital. The only indicator is the number of P+R car parks, the lack of eg. an inner city air pollution indicator is a shortcoming. (It has to be noted that Budapest does not have any competence over the agglomeration, results therefore can only be achieved in cooperation with the central government and agglomeration municipalities.)
Recommendation 4 of the CA – 90% supported: The Budapest municipality should launch a media and education campaign about climate change, and what actions individuals and communities can take to combat it. The aim of the action is to make people aware of the climate crisis, so they understand what is at stake, what changes they can expect and how to prepare for them.
Relevant part of the climate strategy: Measure SZ3 contains the specific objective of creating the Budapest Climate Change Platform and a related online space. While this is a very important and useful step, it is not the media campaign that the CA recommended, but more of a platform for public dialogue.
Recommendation 5 of the CA – 90% supported: By piloting climate-friendly streets, Budapest should showcase the city of the future. Different types of pilot-streets would demonstrate tangible examples of how the environment, energy consumption and transportation would look like under desirable conditions, while testing different urban-planning, organisational and technological solutions.
Relevant part of the climate strategy: Measure SZ3 contains the specific objective of creating the Budapest Climate Change Platform and a related online space. While this is a very important and useful step, it is not the pilot-street programme that the CA recommended, but more of a platform for public dialogue.
Recommendation 6 of the CA – 88% supported: Budapest should decrease the city centre car traffic through the restriction of car traffic, traffic management, bus-lanes and bike-lanes, car-sharing, changes to parking, where non-residents are charged a congestion fee. The aim of this recommendation is to decrease noise, congestion and air pollution in the city centre.
Relevant part of the climate strategy: Measure M8 describes the plans of Budapest on cycling and pedestrian infrastructure in detail, containing concrete measures.
Special low emission zones are only mentioned though as an optional possibility, and the success indicators do not include the reduction of air pollution.
Measure M10 on public cars and car-sharing aims at the improvement of such services and it also provides justification for them, but it offers few concrete measures beyond that. However, the measure states that fixed stations and car-sharing meeting points will be necessary to the spread of public cars and car-sharing.
Nevertheless, concrete objectives are lacking with regards to the number of such fixed stations and meeting points, and there is no mention of what other (eg. legal or incentive) measures should be taken to improve these services.
Measure M11 addresses traffic management, the designation of low emission zones and the development of P+R car parks. Its goals correspond to those formulated by the CA.
It does not contain concrete measures, only repeats what earlier plans of the city stated and lists relevant possibilities and competences of the capital.
The only indicator is the number of P+R car parks, the lack of eg. an inner city air pollution indicator is a shortcoming.
Recommendation 7 of the CA – 85% supported: The municipality of Budapest should support rainwater reuse and retention through providing professional support, launching a local council grants programme and piloting projects. Besides the improvement of local microclimates, the aim of the recommendation is to decrease the risk of flash-floods and the total workload of the sewage system and to reuse rainwater in order to save potable water.
Relevant part of the climate strategy: Measure A12 contains the plan to develop the regulatory and support system of rainwater reuse and retention (also for private investors), which is in line with the recommendation of the CA. The concrete form of incentive remains unclear (concessions or support for constructions, compulsory quotas).
Recommendation 8 of the CA: Budapest should cancel projects that damage the climate, and integrate climate protection into the authorisation process for projects.
Relevant part of the climate strategy: Measure SZ2 aims at applying climate protection principles horizontally for urban development plans and in the creation of regulations. This only partly addresses the requests of the CA because the measure can already be applied for the authorisation of future projects, but not for those already in progress.
Overall it can be stated that the CA’s recommendations are reflected in the draft version of the climate strategy, currently subject to public consultation, however, hopefully only for now, some aspects of the recommendations remain unaddressed.
Photos: Ildikó Fülöp / DemNet