End of Commitment Report – Operationalization of participatory budgeting

Name of Evaluator

Calin Rus and Corina Tursie

Email

[email protected],[email protected]

Member Name

Timișoara, Romania

Action PlanAction plans are at the core of a government’s participation in OGP. They are the product of a co-creation process in which government and civil society jointly develop commitments to open governmen... Title

Action plan – Timișoara, Romania, 2022 – 2024

CommitmentOGP commitments are promises for reform co-created by governments and civil society and submitted as part of an action plan. Commitments typically include a description of the problem, concrete action...

Operationalization of participatory budgeting

Title

Operationalization of participatory budgeting

Action

Participatory budgeting is a tool used to engage citizens in setting priorities for a predefined amount of the local budget. The overall objective of this commitment is to increase the engagement of citizens in identifying community priorities and spending the local budget.

• A 2.1. Experience exchange with other cities
• A 2.2. Participatory budgeting regulationGovernment reformers are developing regulations that enshrine values of transparency, participation, and accountability in government practices. Technical specifications: Act of creating or reforming ... and methodology
• A 2.3. Digital participatory budgeting tool
• A 2.4. Execution of the participatory budgeting process, with attention to communication and representativeness
• A 2.5. Transparent information on how the participatory budget is used

Problem

So far, this concept has not been implemented by Timisoara Municipality at the level of the general population, the citizens having few opportunities to influence the spending of the local budget. At the same time, the level of engagement of citizens in the decision-making processes in the local administration is low.

1.1 What was the overall level of progress in the commitment implementation at the time of this assessment?

complete

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

All actions defined initially were implemented as planned. The Local Action Plan included milestones regarding the development of dedicated regulations for a local participatory budgeting campaign and its implementation. At the time of this report, Timisoara had implemented three successful participatory budgeting campaigns with a constant increase in the number of citizens engaged of almost 50% every year, reaching 6.715 citizens in 2022, 8.228 in 2023, and 11.974 in 2024. Each year, the campaign regulation has improved based on experience and statistics of the previous year, including additional means for reaching new audiences:

• The second edition had a dedicated budget for 4 marginalized areas where the level of engagement was very low or zero previously.
• The third edition had dedicated budgets for 8 areas of the city, generating a higher level of engagement in the whole city and more projects dedicated to neighborhoods instead of central areas.

1.2 Describe the main external or internal factors that impacted implementation of this commitment and how they were addressed (or not).

Based on the research done in other countries and the exchange with other towns, from both Romania and abroad, implementing a participatory budgeting campaign before us, the administration took three decisions:

1. To create a mixed Committee overseeing the implementation of the campaign, composed of 5 members of the public administration and 4 members of the community, selected each year through an open call.
   This led to a better understanding of the eligibility criteria and a more transparent evaluation of proposals eligibility.
2. To attract partner NGOs each year to help reach less represented groups (youthRecognizing that investing in youth means investing in a better future, OGP participating governments are creating meaningful opportunities for youth to participate in government processes. Technical ... More, disadvantaged citizens, citizens with disabilities, seniors, etc.)
3. To keep the process online to better suit local administrative resources, but also to allow the administration to collect and analyze data to improve the process constantly. And at the same time, commit to promoting the campaign offline as well and offer support to those who are not digitally connected or savvy.

The regulation was reviewed each year in consultation, and there was also a debate organized to collect and integrate feedback from the community and adapt it to their needs and expectations.
In addition, there was great support provided by a group of volunteers who developed the dedicated online platform with a user-friendly interface for both citizens and also for internal users who could easily upload information and adapt the platform each year with minimal external support, therefore reducing costs.
Regarding winning projects implementation, there are still some in implementation. The internal analysis improved from one edition to the other, but there are still some situations that were not identified during analysis and that impacted the duration of some project implementation (for example, juridical aspects regarding the location of the project).

1.3 Was the commitment implemented as originally planned?

All of the commitment milestones were implemented as planned

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

All commitments were implemented as planned, with very small adjustments. The campaigns were also implemented successfully.

The only two aspects that generated adjustments along the process are:

1. National current financial regulations for public administrations do not allow to have a dedicated budget line for participatory budgeting. Therefore, the timeline of the campaign was adapted accordingly in the second half of the year, not the first half, as the first campaign, to allow for financial planning of the winning projects and inclusionOGP participating governments are working to create governments that truly serve all people. Commitments in this area may address persons with disabilities, women and girls, lesbian, gay, bisexual, tr... More in the next year’s budget.
2. Participatory campaign winning projects overlap with other projects of the administration, as well as ongoing tasks, leaving the technical departments overloaded sometimes, and leading to delays in implementation.

2.1.1. – Did the government disclose more information; improve the quality of the information (new or existing); improve the value of the information; improve the channels to disclose or request information or improve accessibility to information?

Yes

Degree of result:

Major

Explanation: In narrative form, what has been the impact on people or practice.

The program has impacted local open government endeavors in several ways:

1. It helped citizens, especially project initiators, get more knowledgeable about administrative processes and retrains and have more realistic expectations regarding project implementation duration.
2. It offers constant communication about the project’s implementation.
3. It turned citizens into ambassadors for the municipality, turning down criticism and disinformation with real-life examples from their own experience within this program, both in online interaction but also in face-to-face events.

The independent monitoring body recommends that future endeavors have a greater emphasis on diversifying participation and targeting disadvantaged communities, as this was the initial rationale of participatory budgeting when it was launched in Latin American cities; otherwise, all citizens already involved in civic life are activated to obtain resources for their own neighborhood/school.

2.1.2. – Did the government create new opportunities to seek feedback from citizens/enable participation inform or influence decisions; improve existing channels or spaces to seek feedback from citizens/enable participation/ inform or influence decisions; create or improve capabilities in the government or the public aimed to improve how the government seeks feedback from citizens/enables participation/ or allows for the public to inform or influence decisions?

Yes

Degree of result:

Outstanding

Explanation: In narrative form, what has been the impact on people or practice.

The participatory budgeting program in Timișoara represents more than a mere administrative tool as it serves as an active platform for collaboration between the local administration and the citizens. The program has impacted the community in several ways:

1. It opened up discussions about how community needs are negotiated and prioritized, generating debates both offline during neighborhood meetings, but also online in each project’s page in the comments sections.
2. It empowered citizen initiators to become active advocates for their projects, investing time and energyEnsuring universal access to sustainable, dependable, and affordable energy is critical to every aspect of prosperity. Increasing public oversight and transparency in the energy sector can help to ens... More to take the word out and attract their community’ support.
3. In some neighborhoods, it helped form small communities around a common goal, communities that continued to work together even beyond this program

The independent monitoring body noticed that the results communicated do not include detailed data regarding winning project implementation and recommends that, for the future, to include full reporting of the project cycle, down to the implementation level: % of project implementation, lessons learned from project implementation.

2.1.3 Did the government create or improve channels, opportunities or capabilities to hold officials answerable to their actions?

Yes

Degree of result:

Major

Explanation: In narrative form, what has been the impact on people or practice.

The program allowed citizens to decide how a part of the local budget is spent, empowering them to make proposals and vote for those that better respond to the community’s needs.

2.2 Did the commitment address the public policy problem that it intended to address as described in the action plan?

Yes

Provide a brief explanation of your answer:

Before this program, citizens had few opportunities to influence the spending of the local budget. At the same time, the level of engagement of citizens in the decision-making processes in the local administration was low, with a very low level of response and engagement in public debates and open consultations (less than 0.2%).

After three participatory budgeting campaigns, the level of civic participation increased greatly. From 2022 to 2024, the number of voters increased by 78.32 percent, and the total number of votes cast grew by 43.25 percent. A remarkable feature was the high share of new voters. In 2023, seventy‑nine percent of votes came from people taking part for the first time, and in 2024, that share stood at sixty percent. The main motivation for citizens to engage in the campaign was the relevanceAccording to the OGP Articles of Governance, OGP commitments should include a clear open government lens. Specifically, they should advance at least one of the OGP values: transparency, citizen partic... of the proposed projects. This relevance stemmed either from geographic proximity to home or from personal interest in topics such as the development of green spaces.

3. Provide at least one lesson or reflection relating to the implementation of this commitment. It can be the identification of key barriers to implementation, an unexpected help/hindrance, recommendations for future commitments, or if the commitment should be taken forward to the next action plan.

Here are some of the lessons learned from our experience after implementing three editions of the participatory budgeting campaign:

• Project implementation responsibilities have to be well-defined and integrated into the technical departments’ budgets and yearly planning.
• It helps greatly to appoint a person responsible for the relationship with the community during project implementation to inform them constantly on the progress, but also to make sure the results are as planned and to facilitate discussions with the community in case there are any changes along the way.
• Allocating budget per area fosters engagement as people feel more compelled to support projects located in their proximity and that will bring value added to their day-to-day life. Allocating budget per area also reduces disparities between neighborhoods with higher density and more educated citizens and marginalized neighborhoods.
• Even if the campaign is operated through an online platform, the administration has to plan offline actions properly to reach people who are not tech-savvy or as connected as more resourceful citizens. Here you can include offline materials promoting the campaign posted in public transportation and other public spaces, in local media, and transmitted directly in the community through citizen ambassadors. But you also have to plan workshops in the community and facilitate in-person discussions between citizens, help them identify and negotiate needs and solutions.
• Empowering citizens to promote their own projects has a tremendous multiplier effect with limited costs. Some citizens can become creative and use more compelling arguments to reach and attract support from their community, leading also to an increased level of ownership of the projects in the neighborhood and sustainability of the investments in public space.