SOS Tbilisi: A Top-down Challenge to Environmental Civic Activism in Georgia

Transcription

1 SOS Tbilisi: A Top-down Challenge to Environmental Civic Activism in Georgia Lia Tsuladze Tbilisi State University Center for Social Sciences

2 Emergence of Policy-Oriented Civic Activism Parliamentary elections and the first constitutional transfer of power since the country gained independence in 1991; Presidential elections; Self-government elections Policy-oriented civic activism gains a regular character and enriches its advocacy strategies. The Cases of environmental participation: Vake Park and Panorama Tbilisi. Research Question: What are the main obstacles to public involvement in environmental policy-making in Georgia?

3 Research Method Analysis of Local Self-Government Code of Georgia (2014) to assess the legislative openness to public involvement in local governance; Analysis of the available documentation on the Vake Park and Panorama Tbilisi cases at the City Hall and the City Assembly (policy papers, complaints and petitions submitted by outside actors and official responses to them) to trace both the citizens use of conventional forms of participation and the government s responsiveness to their demands; Content analysis of all related articles from selected online media, from the initiation of the two projects until January 2016; Four focus groups with environmental activists and local selfgovernment authorities conducted from October to November 2015.

4 Media Analysis Selection criteria: Georgian-language online media covering the cases of Vake Park and Panorama Tbilisi most frequently; News & Views. Popular online periodicals offering views: Tabula (29 articles on Vake Park and 90 articles on Panorama Tbilisi ) and Liberali (10 articles on Vake Park and 26 articles on Panorama Tbilisi ) associated with different political positions (pro-unm and anti-unm, respectively); Analytical web portals offering news: Netgazeti (13 articles on Vake Park and 60 articles on Panorama Tbilisi ), Business Press News (5 articles on Vake Park and 50 articles on Panorama Tbilisi ), Guria News and Radio Tavisupleba (around 10 articles on each case).

5 Focus Groups Two focus group discussions with the activists who initiated and were most actively involved in the protest against the Vake Park and Panorama Tbilisi projects, particularly those of Guerilla Gardening, Green Fist, and Tiflis Hamqari (18 activists). Guerilla Gardening - activists of various ages and professional backgrounds promoting environmental policy in Tbilisi; Green Fist - young people, mostly students, whose declared mission is to resist the state policy of maximal appropriation of natural resources; Tiflis Hamqari - activists of various ages (including professionals of urban planning) who call themselves guardians of Tbilisi heritage and aim to involve citizens in the protection and preservation of its urban environment. Two focus groups with the local self-government authorities responsible for the official decisions related to Vake Park and Panorama Tbilisi : The UNM and GD representatives of the City Hall and the City Assembly (12 officials).

6 Assessing the interaction between the two governments and activists King, Feltey and O Neill Susel s (1998) typology of Authentic vs. Unauthentic Participation: interaction style (conflictual vs. collaborative), approach toward other (mistrust vs. trust), role of citizen (unequal participant vs. equal partner), citizen output (buy-in vs. design), decision-making process (invisible and closed vs. visible and open)

7 Hotel Budapest in Vake Park

8 Protest Actions against the construction in Vake Park (started on December 28, 2013)

9 The UNM and GD Mayors on the case of Vake Park The UNM Mayor Gigi Ugulava gave a permit to build a 7-storey hotel Budapest on this site. The GD candidate for Mayor Davit Narmania: The construction in Vake Park is the best example of how one should not treat the city If I had been the mayor then, I would not have issued a construction permit for this site. If I become mayor, such territories will be transformed into recreational zones ( ).

10 The Activists and Population on the Case of Vake Park The NGOs and activists discourse: More aggression to save Vake Park! The cultural elite s protest campaign to save Vake Park: A common harm to that small part of the earth called Georgia (Zura Kipshidze, actor, ). The youth mobilization to save Vake Park: We have been raised in Vake Park! In March 2016, the city government invalidated the permit issued by UNM authorities and offered the company an alternative site for the construction of the hotel.

11 The Project of Panorama Tbilisi

12 Protest Actions against Panorama Tbilisi (started on December 29, 2014)

13 The UNM and GD Mayors on Panorama Tbilisi The GD Mayor Davit Narmania: For me as a Mayor it is important to implement a project with a half-billion investment, the possibility of employing lots of people and a lasting perspective of attracting tourists ( ). The UNM ex-mayor Gigi Ugulava: This construction ruins the main tourist artery it has none of the positive sides either historical, architectural, socioeconomic or societal ( ).

14 Experts on Panorama Tbilisi Urban planner Zurab Bakradze: It is unacceptable to implement the project worth 900 billion USD in the city where the people live in poverty, many houses in the old city are almost ruined, air pollution exceeds acceptable norms, and the space of greenery is a few times less than that established by the world standards ( ). Art historian Maia Mania: Panorama Tbilisi will not only be a serious blow to Tbilisi but also raze it to the ground ( ). Architect Irakli Zhvania: Panorama Tbilisi violates the law on cultural heritage banning the construction of technical buildings at the historical sites ( ).

15 Online Media on Panorama Tbilisi Panorama Tbilisi -The investment that kills (Liberali, ) Panorama Tbilisi a requiem for Old Tbilisi? (Radio Liberty, ) Activists say SOS for Old Tbilisi as massive development goes ahead (Democracy and Freedom Watch, ) Tbilisi is an unfortunate city (Liberali, ) Through Panorama Tbilisi Ivanishvili grabs almost entire Old Tbilisi (Tabula, )

16 NGOs and Citizens on Panorama Tbilisi The NGOs and activists discourse on Panorama Tbilisi: Urbocide - the investment that kills. NGOs: To give a permit to the project construction is an irresponsible action by the government [that] has completely ignored 17 organizations and 5000 citizens official demand to make a decision through the public administrative process ( ). The citizens discourse on Panorama Tbilisi: NO to Panorama, the city is ours! Tbilisians call for urban development plan to save the city s old districts (Democracy and Freedom Watch, ). Despite a continuous protest, the government did not terminate the Panorama Tbilisi project.

17 Protests of Vake Park and Panorama Tbilisi Starting in response to the government officials covert issue of construction permits and appropriation of public space; Environmental activists have resisted the developmental projects supported by government officials without demanding the change of those in power; Both campaigns have had a continuous character with large-scale protest at the initial stage and rather small but regular reactive actions afterwards; The environmental advocacy campaigns have had a coalition-based structure with the activists shared leadership; Environmental activists have started using innovative strategies of policy advocacy, such as throwing peas at the walls of City Hall, flash mobs like a Picnic at the City Hall, and theatrical performances in the streets of Tbilisi.

18 Throwing Peas at the Walls of City Hall (July 17, 2015)

19 The Main Challenge to Environmental Civic Participation King, Feltey, and O Neill Susel s typology of authentic and unauthentic participation (1998). Government officials reluctance to collaborate with activists and civil society at large on issues of environmental protection and city planning: When the government initiates a new project, it is necessary to involve a certain segment of the public and NGOs as representatives of civil society. We know that neither the UNM nor the GD government has done so (Tiflis Hamqari). Artificial barriers created by government officials to block their attendance of the City Assembly meetings: We were not allowed to attend the public discussions of Panorama Tbilisi at the City Assembly. The passes were used as an excuse. They said we should have signed up earlier, while we did so (Guerilla Gardening). Reinvention of legislation: The government reinvents the legislation to use it against us (K.K., Green Fist, focus group). The Parliament started discussing the legislative initiative on banning the NGOs that receive international funding (Netgazeti.ge, May 11, 2017).

20 Do Formal Changes Make Difference? After the local self-government elections of 2014, the new government pursues a different policy. The former government did not allow us to enter the City Hall, while the current government opens the doors (Guerilla Gardening). Despite the fact that they get to know about the discussions only post factum, currently there is more opportunity for using the mechanisms of engagement (Green Fist). During the UNM government there was a period when civic participation was connected to certain risks and dangers (Guerilla Gardening). BUT Nothing has changed. The ignorant or corrupted people work at City Hall again Does it matter who harms the city? It absolutely does not matter for me whether the UNM Mayor cuts trees or the GD one does so (Tiflis Hamqari).

21 GD officials description of their interaction with activists On the 7-point scale, GD officials assess their decisionmaking process as open and transparent, and their interaction with activists as collaborative. GD officials stress their proactive strategies to encourage outside actors involvement in policy-making and note that environmental activists are not responsive to their openness and rarely apply conventional means of participation. GD officials juxtapose their proactive approach with the UNM officials decision-making style, which they consider quite closed and inaccessible to the public, as well as guided by double standards.

22 UNM officials description of their interaction with activists UNM officials acknowledge that only after the public protest against the construction in Vake Park became visible, did they have to respond to it. Consequently, their response was quite late and inadequate. UNM officials see no difference between their and GD governments interaction style with environmental activists and civil society, and on the 7-point scale assess both as equally exclusive. In response to the GD officials accusation that environmental decision-making lacked publicity during the UNM government, UNM officials state that the same lack of publicity is characteristic of the Panorama Tbilisi project.

23 What is common between UNM and GD governments approaches? Both UNM and GD officials label the activists as politically biased and controlled by their political opponents. It is obvious that these people were used for political purposes (UNM official); They are the UNM s satellites (GD official). No difference between the two governments We are identified with either UNM or GD depending on what we protest against and whose interests are involved (Activists). Non-partisan political activism unmasking both UNM and GD governments imitation of democracy (Activists). Considering the public s growing readiness to participate in the environmental policy-making, is the state ready to support democracy from below?

24 THANK YOU!