Problems and purposes

The project proposal for the Sesto San Giovanni BioPlatform arises from a discussion, which began in 2016, with stakeholders and interested Municipalities regarding the future of the entire area. Currently in the Via Manin area there is an urban waste incinerator, managed by CORE, and an urban wastewater purifier managed by CAP. The comparison arose from the need to face two strategic challenges for the territory: & nbsp;

• the redefinition of the integrated management system of the waste cycle in the territory, adopting the principles of the circular economy promoted by 'European Union, implementing separate waste collection, in particular of the organic fraction, helping to reach the targets set at national level; & nbsp;
• the management of the "end of life" of the CORE waste-to-energy plant (Bertello, 2019a, p. 3). & nbsp;

The new structure includes two production lines: the first will be dedicated to the thermal treatment of sludge deriving from water purification and will allow the production of thermal energy for district heating and fertilizers phosphates; the second will be dedicated to anaerobic digestion for the treatment of wet waste (FORSU) for the production of biomethane (Ib.).

At the request of the municipalities involved in the management of the area, the CAP and CORE companies have called a participatory process entrusted to the company Nimby Forum and to the care of Agnese Bertello. & nbsp;

The objectives of the participatory path are:

1. to favor a transparent confrontation and constructive dialogue between the proposing companies, the municipal administrations and the territory, in a climate of mutual trust, essential for starting any territorial transformation project;
2. disseminating complete and clear information on the project, on the technologies adopted, the impact on the environment and on the expected benefits;
3. listen to the territory and collect critical issues, questions, proposals, solicitations from the citizens involved (Ib., p. 5). & nbsp;

History and background context

With the av wind of the consumer society, in the mid-sixties, the first generation of incinerators was built in the Milan area. In 1968, in via Zama, on the south-eastern outskirts, the first Italian energy recovery incineration plant was inaugurated. In 1975, the second, also in Milan, in the north-west outskirts of Figino. After 1976, following the disaster in nearby Seveso and the dioxin investigations, an intense debate arose on incinerators that spread throughout the world, as potential sources of continuous emissions of this substance dangerous to health (Frigerio, Bisio, 1979). & Nbsp;

It seems to date back to 1966 the Sesto San Giovanni del CORE incineration plant: the public consortium serving the municipality itself and the neighboring municipalities of Cologno Monzese, Pioltello, Segrate and Cormano, & nbsp; areas affected by a strong metropolitan conurbation (Link 1 - The history of CORE). "In the 1960s, the original plant owned by the shareholder municipalities consisted of a single fixed line for the incineration of solid urban waste, a line that was stopped around 1986 due to the impossibility of maintaining emissions within the legal limits" (Ib.). & Nbsp;

Then modernized in the nineties, "although of small capacity, the plant has achieved the best technologies in the sector and the best performance, as recognized by the Legambiente dossier, as regards emissions of pollutants avoided. From the incineration of the waste disposed of, steam at 40 bar and 360 ° C is produced which, in the nominal measure of about 30 t / h, is transferred to the turbine to produce electricity, or diverted to a heat exchanger for the district heating network [ ...]; serves a population of over 350,000 thousand inhabitants "(Link 1 - The history of CORE). & nbsp;

" The achievement of regional self-sufficiency in waste disposal, and the tendential reduction in the production volumes of the waste-to-energy plant , alongside a different environmental sensitivity (summarized in the so-called “zero waste” objective), and a broader reading of the notion of territorial productive development, lead to seek a different perspective for the plant for the future. The reasoning can be made on a timing that starts from 2019 (the year in which the mortgages with Cassa Depositi e Prestiti will be paid off) and the conversion of the waste-to-energy plant can be achieved. The guidelines to be inspired by are clear, for the search for a different future that leads to the enhancement of the area: guaranteeing the employment of those who work there; the construction of a different industrial perspective that enhances and develops the role of technologically equipped area that already characterizes the structure today; the full environmental sustainability of this perspective. As established by the document approved by the shareholders on 9 September 2016 that in December 2016 CORE signs an agreement with the CAP group, manager of the integrated water service of the Metropolitan City of Milan. & Nbsp; The document commits the parties to the study of a industrial plan that provides for the creation of a research center for environmental technologies. A pole of green innovation. A true bioplatform that could recover materials from purified sludge and waste, while producing biomethane and heat "(Ib.).

Organization, support and financing entities

" The path was promoted by CAP and CORE starting from the request expressed by all Municipalities involved in the project (Sesto San Giovanni, Pioltello, Cormano, Segrate, Cologno Monzese) to involve citizens in an open debate on the project "(Bertello, 2019a, p. 5). & nbsp;

CORE SpA - Consorzio Recuperi Energetici is a joint stock company set up by the Municipalities of Sesto San Giovanni, Cologno Monzese, Pioltello, Segrate and Cormano to deal with the disposal of solid urban waste, through incineration, of the aforementioned communities, with a basin of 350 thousand inhabitants. & Nbsp;

Group CAP - Consortium for Drinking Water for the Municipalities of the Seveso basin. It originated in 1928, today it is a public capital company owned by local authorities and the main water service management company of the Metropolitan City of Milan and some municipalities in the provinces of Monza and Brianza, Pavia, Como and Varese. It manages the service in a basin of 2 million inhabitants, manages networks and plants, plans and implements investments and maintenance works. & Nbsp;

"The definition of the structure of the meetings and the management of the participatory path was entrusted by CAP to Nimby Forum, which acted as a third party and independent from the parties involved in the project "(Ib.).

Nimby Forum ® & nbsp;" is active since 2004 with the aim of analyzing the trend of the & nbsp; NIMBY syndrome & nbsp; (Not in My BackYard) in Italy. The Permanent Media Observatory manages the only national database of public utility works that are subject to disputes "(Link 2). Nimby Forum is a project curated by a group of consultants operating under various company names, in particular Aris, a non-profit association, Information and Society Research Agency, and Allea SrL (both have the same headquarters in Milan). Agnese Bertello , curator of the participatory process is a collaborator of this group, curator of projects, as well as partner of Ascolto Attivo SrL of Milan. & nbsp;

The cost of the process is not indicated , nor the methods of selection and assignment of the assignment to Nimby Forum, which is not a legal entity, but a brand / project of Aris, a non-profit association which has the same headquarters as Allea SrL. & nbsp;

Selection and recruitment of participants

Public meetings and thematic workshops

• 5 meetings open to all of public debate took place from 26/11 / 18 to 22/1/19, from 6 to about 9 pm, with an average of 50 people per meeting: "active citizens, especially residents in the district where the system will be built, representatives of associations and committees, representatives of institutions local "(Bertello, 2019a, p. 10). More details on the categories or demographics of the participants are not indicated, but they are sometimes mentioned in the individual reports if there were members of particular associations or committees (eg Ass. Sottocorno, Cascina Gatti Committee). & Nbsp;
• 1 meeting for the return of the results / presentation of the joint document and CAP in response to the observations, took place on 2/4/19 (6 pm-9pm, Spazio Arte). & Nbsp;
• 1 meeting of discussion on the experiences of monitoring advisory committees such as the RAB (8/7, 18-21, Spazio Arte)
• 1 meeting to present the executive project, technical characteristics and environmental aspects, as well as a presentation of the results of the participatory process carried out and the constitution of the RAB, the advisory committee that will have the task of following the entire process and all phases of the project (19/9/19, 18-20 hours, Villa Casati, Cologno Monzese) . & nbsp;

The meetings were held in multi-purpose spaces public and once in a parish seat. "Some criticisms have come about the choice of meeting locations that some participants considered not sufficiently close to the plant. Accepting this request, it was decided to hold one of the meetings in a different location from those planned, aiming to involve the inhabitants of the neighborhood in a more concrete way "(Ib., P. 10). & Nbsp;

According to the curator, third-party experts, technicians from the CAP and CORE companies, representatives of the institutions were involved for "the thematic investigations" (Ib., P. 9).

Table constituting the committee control and monitoring (RAB) . For the formation of the RAB, a restricted discussion path was identified with the proposing actors of which a first meeting was held. & Nbsp; The selection of the participants in the constituent table was proposed by the curator and communicated at least in the meeting of 19/9 , as can be seen from the presentation available online (Link 3 - The path).

• First meeting of the constituent table of the RAB (27/9/19, 6-8 pm, Villa Visconti, Sesto San John). In addition to the curator and managerial and political figures of companies and municipalities (9 members excluding the curator), there were: one member of the trade union units for each company (one for CAP and one for CORE); a member of the Sesto Environmental Council (who should be a member of environmental associations, but is not specified in the minutes); 3 members of the neighborhood committees, and a self-candidate citizen already present in the process.

Experts - Defined as "experts", of which they were available in the pages of the website dedicated to the curriculum, there were: a professor from the University of Verona and one from the Polytechnic of Milan, 3 engineers (two from companies involved in the project, TBF Partner AG and Tecno Habitat, and one from CNR); an architect (Studio Quattroassociati) and dr. Riganti, architect planner, Manager of the Planning Area of the Department of the Environment of the Municipality of Sesto S. Giovanni. & Nbsp; In the second phase, preparation for the implementation of the project and the constitution of the monitoring advisory committee (RAB) was organized an informative meeting to compare various models of involvement of actors and citizens in the monitoring committees. Guest speakers were: S. Bidese, president of the RAB waste-to-energy plant in Ferrara; L. Piotto and two other members of the Pré District Control Committee regarding the anaerobic digestion plant of the wet fraction of Bassano del Grappa. & Nbsp;

Management and political figures - For CAP: Alessandro Russo, president and CEO, Michele Falcone, general manager, Andrea Lanuzza, technical director, Davide Scaglione, process and performance optimization manager, Matteo Colle, external relations and CSR manager and Antonella Biasco, CSR manager. For CORE, Marco Cipriano, sole director and the engineer Ilario Tassone spoke. & Nbsp;

The Municipalities were represented, at the start of the debate, by the Mayor of Sesto San Giovanni, Roberto Di Stefano, the mayor of Cologno Monzese, Angelo Rocchi and the officials of the municipalities of Pioltello, Cormano and Segrate. The in-depth workshops were attended by the Councilor for the Environment of the Municipality of Sesto, Alessandra Magro, together with Paolo Riganti, government director of the Sesto San Giovanni area. For the Municipality of Segrete, Sandrina Bosco, councilor for the environment was present. & Nbsp;

Curators - The curator of the course was always present, who also facilitated a table, as well as 3 other professional facilitators, when the discussion took place in restricted tables. & nbsp;

Website (Link 1) - The project was presented on the site (they are brochures can be downloaded), the participatory path and all the reports of the meetings were made available, the presentations on the topics addressed presented during the meetings, the final interventions of the speakers with the answers to the questions that emerged. It was possible to send comments and questions or submit specific proposals. “Some criticisms concerned the timeliness of uploading the materials online and the possibility of actually intervening on the site. The implementation of the various features provided on the site was unfortunately incompatible with the tightness of time. In any case, this tool has not been used by citizens in a meaningful way. The interactions - sending questions and materials - were mainly aimed at registering one's participation in the events, which formed the heart of the participatory process ”(Ib., P. 10). There is no news in the "News" section. & Nbsp;

Media - There is no feedback regarding communication via traditional media, press reviews, advertising the event (posters or posters, press conferences, radio notices, etc ...). & nbsp;

Methods and tools used

Public Debate - "The model the reference [...] is the Public Debate, a procedure of comparison with the territory regarding the construction of major works, borrowed from French legislation and introduced into Italian law (in 2018) through the reform of the Procurement Code and the decrees subsequent applications (DPCM 76/2018 - Methods of development, types and dimensional thresholds of the works submitted to Public Debate). Of the Public Debate, in particular, BioPiat Platformalab adopts some key principles: & nbsp;

1. the presence of a coordinator of the entire debate and facilitator of the meetings, with characteristics of impartiality with respect to all parties;
2. the creation of more moments of public discussion with the aim of progressively deepening the most important issues with ad hoc tools; & nbsp;
3. transparency in information management and timely reporting , through reports and documents accessible to all online of what has been discussed and proposed; & nbsp;
4. the closure of the path with a summary document, drawn up by the coordinator, which highlights all the issues dealt with, the critical issues emerged, the proposals put forward and to which the parties involved in the process are called to respond officially (Ib, p. 5). & nbsp;

Working groups (or discussion) - Analogous to focus groups , they allow you to bring together a group of people and start a discussion with them around a desired theme, thanks to the leadership of a facilitator who is called to stimulate the discussion and verify that everyone can express their opinion. Through this methodology it is possible to collect different opinions, stimulate a comparison and explore different points of view or reach an agreement. In the case in question, discussion groups of 10-15 people were formed during the meetings, facilitated by a conductor and focused on the theme chosen for the meeting. Eventually the summaries were shared in plenary. The discussion was not very structured and, as the appointments proceeded, more aimed at dialogue and mutual understanding than to extract information. & Nbsp;

What happened: process, interaction and participation

“The participatory process involved a preliminary project. [...] Often, when a discussion is initiated with the territory regarding the construction of an infrastructural work, the criticism that is most often raised concerns the start date of the process. In most cases, those participating in the process would have liked the discussion [...] to have started at a time when it was possible to discuss general and strategic aspects. In the case of the Sesto BioPlatform, the participatory process was correctly initiated in a preliminary planning phase, therefore in a phase in which important interventions and changes on the project can also be taken into consideration "(Ib, p. 10). & Nbsp;

The path can be divided into two phases. & nbsp;

1. A first phase of discussion, which took place over a month in 5 meetings.
2. A second phase of implementation which, since the conclusion of the first, is still in progress.

1. The following meetings were held in the first phase.

• First opening meeting, presentation of the project and emergence of concerns (26/11, Spazio MIL, Sesto SG).
• Thematic laboratory on economic aspects (5/12, Spazio MIL).
• Laboratory on environmental impact and technological choices (12/12, Parish of Cascina Gatti).
• Laboratory thematic on controls and compensations (18/12, Spazio Arte, Sesto SG).
• Final meeting to present the results (22/1/19, Spazio Arte).

< p> "Each meeting provided for an initial plenary session in which general information and information relating to the various thematic insights were shared, some initial presentations by third-party experts, invited by CAP, CAP and CORE company technicians, representatives of institutions involved. The plenary session has always been followed by working groups ”(discussion groups in tables)“ in which the dialogue between the participants was coordinated by facilitators. [...] Both an immediate oral presentation, in plenary session, by the table facilitators, and a written return uploaded online on the website, were made of each work session. The return to the plenary was followed by a subsequent moment of open discussion, in which experts and technicians were able to respond directly to the questions posed. On the site, in addition to the reports of the meetings, all the presentations and all the materials discussed were made available "(Ib., P. 6). & Nbsp;

From the meetings of the first phase of the debate, , in summary, the following issues:

1. The environmental context, the location of the plant and the alternative scenarios. Already from the first meetings, the participants, residing in the area, showed impatience with new plants given the high urbanization and the presence of various plants and infrastructures in addition to the waste-to-energy plant (two power lines, the ring roads and the treatment plant). Already from the first meeting and in the first workshop on 5/12, a discussion began on two alternative basic scenarios to the proposal. The alternative scenarios to the proposed process, the bio platform, were: 1) the decommissioning of the waste-to-energy plant, the reclamation of the area and the creation of a green area; 2) the modernization of the current plant fed with unsorted waste. During the workshop, the economic evaluations and strategic considerations that led to the exclusion of these options with respect to the alternative choice of the bio platform were presented. On the first hypothesis (creation of a green area) the costs that would be burdened on the municipalities were huge, the CORE company would have closed, they wanted to guarantee the 43 jobs, it would have been necessary to resort to new operators on the market to manage both unsorted waste and wet fraction (FORSU), at rates higher than those that the company controlled “in house” by the municipalities would have offered. The second hypothesis (modernization of the current plant) was also considered impractical due to the high costs of a plant renewal and the strategic trends in progress, which go towards a circular economy, i.e. the reduction of waste production, recycling. , recovery. On the proposal in question, on the other hand, part of the plants could be recovered, new land consumption was avoided by using that already owned by the companies. Although answers were provided by the experts, the participants asked for written answers and an economic evaluation on the two discarded options produced by third parties (Ib., P. 12).
2. The environmental and landscape impact. On the architectural choice, several notes were made by the participants, who prefer natural materials over metallic ones and would like a green area, with wet areas, connected to cycle paths and usable. It was therefore proposed to provide additional participatory laboratories with a possible model of the project.
3. Emissions and guarantees on controls. On this issue, the proponents presented the performance of the Zurich plant, which would be identical to that proposed for Sesto. The participants were 'reassured' that these already mature technologies are adopted in Europe in different plants and that the original aspect would consist only in their synergy, in the same site. The movement of trucks in and out would also be similar to the current movement to and from the waste-to-energy plant. & Nbsp;
4. Controls and guarantees. Much of the debate has focused on this aspect, an issue that implies the rebuilding of trust between citizens and managers that has been severely worn out in previous years, due to the poor sharing and clarity of information and data on emissions from the waste-to-energy plant. Just as trust in the control bodies (ARPA) and their autonomy of judgment are low. The proponents proposed: 1) modern tools for sharing data in real time; 2) the diffusion of more detectors in the city; 3) the preliminary sharing of a research approach and an impact assessment model. The participants expressed the request that an epidemiological research be carried out to be repeated regularly with a first survey to be carried out with the bio-platform not started, paying the utmost attention to the independence of judgment of the investigators. The conclusions ask the proposers the possibility of creating control committees with citizens on the basis of experiences already existing in Italy (the RAB, Residential Advisory Board of Imola and Ferrara). & Nbsp;
5. The management of the cycle integrated waste. Participants expressed the need for accurate information on waste cycle management and training courses, meetings and more careful communication. One of the concerns is the fate of the ecological island that is currently located within the area and to combine it with a recycling center and an educational space.
6. The transition phase and the construction site. The transition phase raises concern because there is fear of a zeroing of the dialogue with citizens, opportunities for updating on the evolution of the project, on any changes in progress, on the results of the authorization process, just as they are concerned about the impact of the phase. of construction site. Therefore, the proposers were asked to present the stages of the authorization process, the construction phase, and to foresee moments of sharing the evolution of the project with the territory.
7. Compensation and citizen participation. Specific proposals were made for control (cancer registry, epidemiological investigation) and mitigation (use of biomethane for transport, green enhancement, exemption or reduction of the waste tax for neighborhood residents, etc ...) but above all continuity was requested with the participatory method, by choosing the participatory budget method to assign the compensations made available by the CORE-CAP in a transparent and democratic way. Furthermore, the proposing parties are asked to indicate the amount assigned as compensation and the part that could be allocated through the participatory budget. & Nbsp;

For each meeting, the reports of the initial presentations and discussion tables and - after the first meetings following the requests of the citizens - of the answers of the experts to the questions, in addition to the web page dedicated to frequently asked questions. & nbsp;

In this first period ( until about April 2019) formal written observations were also received from the municipalities, other bodies and committees in particular. & nbsp;

2. The first phase of collection and discussion was followed by a response and implementation phase, in 3 meetings open to the public and one restricted to the members of the table for the constitution of the RAB: & nbsp;

• a public meeting (2/4/19, Spazio Arte, 6 pm) presentation of the joint document (municipalities and CAP group) in response to the observations and requests on the bio-platform project. & Nbsp;
• a public meeting (8 / 7/19, Spazio Arte, 6 pm) for an in-depth study on RAB and citizen monitoring advisory committees with experiences and models in comparison.
• a public presentation meeting (19/9/19, Villa Casati , Cologno Monzese, 6-8 pm) of the executive project of the bio platform; furthermore, the results of the participatory process carried out were again presented to him and there was talk of the imminent establishment of the monitoring advisory committee (RAB).
• a first restricted meeting of the constituent table of the RAB (27/9/19, 6-8 pm, Villa Visconti, Sesto San Giovanni). & nbsp;

The document "Summary of observations and responses on the project" was presented at the meeting on 2/4 56-page publication containing 89 questions divided and aggregated into 5 macro-themes to facilitate reading and gathering the answers (Bertello, 2019b).

The observations of the institutions were received on several occasions, also in relation to the fact that in the meantime the Preliminary Services Conference has begun, therefore meetings of the council commissions and in the open municipal councils. This parallel preliminary institutional path, rather unusual to date in the Italian panorama, is referred to in Articles 14 and following of Law 7 August 1990 n. 241 (Link 3 - The path - Meeting of 19/9). & Nbsp;

From a reading of the document it can be said that all questions have been answered and all requests have been answered positive; apart from a request that has been partially answered. During the process, a request for an economic evaluation by third parties emerged and in the response it was simply indicated that in the meetings of CORE shareholders (of 27/2/18), "all the municipal administrations involved are present, also third party technicians present "The economic, corporate and environmental aspects were assessed and the options were considered critical and not conveniently feasible (Bertello, 2019b, p. 52). & Nbsp;

With the meeting on 8/7 may consider the implementation phase fully underway. It is a meeting in which the guest speakers, coming from other regional realities (Ferrara and Bassano del Grappa) present the functioning of the consultative control bodies on the functioning of complex plants: the Hera SpA waste-to-energy plant in Ferrara and a biomethane production plant of ETRA SpA of Bassano. In the first case there do not seem to be more problems than in the past, citizens have confidence that emissions are under control and remain well below the permitted limits. There are no particular inconveniences for the residents. In the second case, however, the situation is constantly improving but the type of similar plant is subject to foul-smelling emissions, more or less dangerous for health. Questions were then asked about the functioning of the committees to the speakers, their power, influence, commitment over time, etc ... And how they intend to proceed in Sesto. & Nbsp;

On 19 / 9 the meeting for the presentation of the executive project was organized, but the curators also returned to the participatory process and the imminent establishment of the monitoring committee. Only the slide presentation of this meeting is available (Link 3 - The path). The exact number of acknowledged requests is reported which have been included in the technical specifications of the call for tenders for the final project and therefore will be considered as binding elements. Although not all requests concern the project specifications, those received are: 17 administrative and 13 environmental. & Nbsp;

We note the start of the constituent table for the control and monitoring committee (RAB). Through a series of operational meetings, by the end of the year, the curators, on the basis of previous preparatory meetings, want to reach a regulation that defines the fundamental characteristics. “It includes representatives of the committees and citizens, representatives of trade unions, representatives of the CAP and CORE companies, representatives of the 5 administrations involved” (Link 3 - Il percoso). At the moment the first meeting of the constituent table took place on 27/9/19 of which the report is available. On that occasion, the members of the committees and of the Council highlighted the imbalance of representation of their parts, open distrust of the self-candidacy of the individual citizen and towards union representatives. It has been specified that the constituent table is not the committee and that its composition is precisely the subject of comparison. The trade unionists also expressed how the workers they represent are also citizens residing in the area and that their role is not only to protect the work but also its quality, the quality of the processes that workers carry out every day and the quality of the work. service as its impact on the territory. A comparison follows on the articles of the future statute of the committee, its powers and decision-making procedures. The interventions of the company and the facilitator focus on dialogue - implicitly asking for trust (visits to the plant and viewing of documents, reports, requests), while those of the committees focus on the strength of opinions, the balance of representations, decision - implicitly asking for guarantees and influence. In conclusion, the curator undertook to draw up a first draft of the article on the basis of the considerations heard and to contact two other local committees that at the moment did not want to participate in the meeting. & Nbsp;

Another 2 / 3 constituent table meetings and a final presentation by December 2019. & nbsp;

Influence, results and effects

The final draft was presented publicly at the meeting on 19 / 9/19. Requests (design according to the best technologies available on the market), additions (upgrading to the filtration system and epidemiological investigations), mitigations (cycle paths, green corridors), participatory planning with the model of the project area to be activated during the " design [...] on architectural and landscape features "(Link 3 - The definitive project), in addition to the control and monitoring committee (RAB), were welcomed. & nbsp;

Concluded the Services Conference preliminary, the application for the “Single Regional Authorization Provision (PAUR) pursuant to art. 27 bis of Legislative Decree 152/2006 scheduled for 11/15/2019 "(Link 3 - The path - Meeting on 19/9). & Nbsp;

Starting from July 17, 2019 the designer (the assignment was assigned to TBF Partner AG based in Zurich and Lugano, the Swiss engineering company that had already carried out the preliminary project) should have started "to work and within 120 days will have to finish the definitive project for the launch of the Single Regional Authorization Provision (PAUR), including the EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) provision which is launched on the basis of the definitive project and which provides for the publication of all documentation to the potentially interested Bodies / Administrations . Only at the end of the authorization procedure, once any further requests for changes that emerged during the PAUR have been integrated, the TBF company will be able to prepare the documents necessary to proceed with the tender for the executive design and construction works "(Link 3 - The project). Probably only then will participatory planning be started (see above). However, there are no indications as to when this further participation process will start. & Nbsp;

Analysis and lessons learned

Although the Public Debate presupposes a dialogue with indeterminate outcomes (poorly endowed with and not sufficiently screened by a close comparison between contrasting or competing positions, with poor measured representativeness), definitively exposed to the ultimate will of the decision makers / proponents, this process shows how the will to dialogue, expressed by the decision makers, is moved by a heartfelt need for strategic and political convenience in primis (these are public companies that manage vital services on a daily basis) but also technical-economic. The launch in the preliminary design idea phase, even if in a short and forced timeframe, made the difference (a first step in favor of the credibility of the proponents and in restoring the trust of citizens) compared to past Public Debate experiences, allowing proposing to acquire more knowledge about the territory and its perceptions / expectations, more information than other territories with similar plants, and to approach with greater prudence investments that are already very high in the planning and authorization phase. All this has elevated the influence of the process on the decisions of the proponents who have accepted as a whole the requests coming from bodies, committees and participants. & Nbsp;

The transparency < / strong> of the process is complete, however there are no details on the assignment to Nimby Forum (which is not a legal person) and on the costs of the process, there is no communication plan for the publicity of the project / path, the process is not very clear formal and references to it are scattered throughout the various pages. The sharing of the path with the actors did not take place but implicitly postponed, in part, to the first phase of the public debate which required some corrections which were then accepted as a whole. However (and indeed) it was not possible to involve all the conflicting actors (in particular a couple of committees) from the first moment. The process is not finished and is almost being institutionalized, positively, through the permanent establishment of the control and monitoring committee (RAB). & Nbsp;

See also

Public Debate

References

• Bertello, A. (2019a, edited by), Bio Platform Lab, Final report of the participatory path, Nimby Forum, CAP, CORE, http: //www.biopiatrestealab .it / wp / wp-content / uploads / 2019/01 / Final-report-BioPiatiaviLab.pdf (ril. 16/10/19).
• Bertello, A. (2019b, edited by), Bio Platform Lab, Summary of observations and responses on the Sesto San Giovanni Bioplatform project, Nimby Forum, CAP, CORE, http: //www.biopiatografo b.it/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SINTESI-OSSERVAZIONI-RISPOSTE-BIOPIATTAFORMA-SESTO-SAN-GIOVANNI.pdf (ril. 16/10/19). & Nbsp;
• Frigerio, A., Bisio, W. (1979, ed.), Dioxins, Waste and Incinerators, an Italian case, Milan, De Vecchi Editore. < / li>

External links

1. CORE SpA - coresesto.it < / a> & nbsp;
2. Nimby Forum - https://www.nimbyforum.it/
3. Site of the participatory process - bioplatformalab.it

< h2> Notes