In the Serchio valley, near the Lucca paper district, a citizens' committee, in collaboration with the Municipality, promoted a process of public discussion in order to provide decision makers with thoughtful opinions on the proposed construction of a gasifier that uses paper mill waste.
Problems and Purpose
KME Italy is a multinational organization with a factory in Fornaci di Barga which produces alloys (for coins) and superconductors. The company wants to build a pyrogasifier to produce electricity powered by industrial waste that is found in abundance in the area, particularly in the form of pulper waste from companies in the Lucca paper district.
The Together for the Dragonfly Committee, created by "La Libellula, group for the environment / Serchio Valley" arose against the pyrogasifier proposal; they promoted, in collaboration with the Municipality of Barga, a participatory process with the support from the Tuscany Region (regional law 46/2013).
The objective of the process was to open a civic discussion, to provide (unsolicited) opinions to decision-makers, in particular to the Region and to the entities that were involved in the already initiated authorization procedure. In fact, this path is part of a long period of confrontation and protest, which began in June 2017, when the City Council of Barga on 29/6 expressed its negative opinion on the proposal, but only communicated to a few.
The path developed according to the following phases :
- Establishment of the Guarantee Committee.
- Organization of an assembly to present the participatory process.
- Identification of the first list of stakeholders to be interviewed.
- In-depth interviews with the main stakeholders of the local community, to gather their opinion on the project for the construction of the gasification plant.
- The Report on the observations collected will be used to plan the subsequent deliberative phase: the themes on which the analysis and discussion of the participants in the participatory process will focus will be identified.
Public deliberation phase
- Involvement of 90 selected citizens in four meetings conducted using the World Café methodology, chosen as it is considered particularly effective in allowing a free and peaceful discussion between participants.
- Starting from the interviews carried out previously, a theme will be identified for each meeting.
- The preliminary analysis at each discussion round will be conducted by an expert on the subject and the participants in the participatory process will discuss with each other, first in small groups and then all together, until a series of recommendations are jointly developed.
- Document containing the recommendations of citizens regarding the project for the construction of the gasification plant and its possible alternatives, will be sent to the KME Italy company, the Tuscany Region and the Municipality of Barga in order to take the consequent decisions.
Background History and Context
The Municipality of Barga is the main center of the Middle Serchio Valley, between the plain of Lucca and the mountains of the Garfagnana. It has 9,800 inhabitants, showing a strong age-old demographic stability.
Fornaci di Barga is one of its hamlets. The greatest expansion of the hamlet took place during the First World War thanks to the establishment, in 1915, of a headquarters of the Italian Metallurgical Society (SMI of the Orlando Group) which employed thousands of people. Hence, new homes were constructed for workers, employees, and managers, establishing the town of Fornaci. To date, the industry has lost much of its military vocation, but has specialized in the processing of copper and its alloys. In the early years of this century, with the advent of the euro, Europa Metalli LMI, now known as the KME Group, began the production of coins, hence the new name "Fornaci: the country where the euro was born". 
The proposal for the pyrogasification plant emerged in the community of Barga in the first half of 2017. On 29/6 the City Council expressed itself on the rumors "not confirmed and not denied on the possible construction of an incinerator at the Fornaci di Barga plant". 
Context provided by the survey
The summary of the description of the context is a product of the process itself: the investigation was carried out by the conductor of the process, through 23 in-depth interviews with representative members of the community, selected with the "snowball" method, starting from 3 names reported by each of the 4 members of the Guarantee Committee. The description of the situation and the recurring themes served to inform the population as well as organize and identify the themes to be addressed in the deliberative phase.
The industrial plant of Fornaci di Barga "has always had great importance for the local community. In the past it represented one of the main sources of work for the population and many of the interviewees speak of the existence, especially in the past, of an emotional relationship that linked the company to citizenship."  The town "has developed over the years around the company. Many services, public and school buildings were built with the decisive contribution of the old company property. Many interviewees underline that the old property paid a lot of attention to the care of relations with the local population, an attitude that appears to have changed with the transition to the new corporate structure”. 
In recent decades, interviewees note that the number of employees at the KME plant has significantly decreased and the emotional relationship between the historic factory of Fornaci and the local population seems to have weakened. 
Many argue that the Fornaci di Barga plant has always produced pollution, but recently the population is paying greater attention to the environmental impacts of the production process. There is widespread hope that the factory will continue to operate in the town but many are asking for guarantees for the health of citizens. 
For many interviewees, the news of the plant was disseminated opaquely and without necessary citizen involvement. Many of the interviewees argue that the company did not undertake to adequately inform the population and some suggest that local institutions did not either, at least in the initial phase of the decision-making process. For the activists of the Together for the Dragonfly movement, and to the citizens who have mobilized in general, many are credited with having organized occasions of discussion with the local population to publicly discuss the proposal. This civic mobilization would have made up for the lack of information and the lack of public discussion on the matter. 
The interviewees are widely in agreement on the fact that, once the news about the company's intention to build a gasification plant spread, the population reacted with strong alarm. Some interviewees judged the criticisms raised by a large part of the local community as reactions not corroborated by concrete threats. Even these legitimate positions can be connected to the issue of the lack of information when the company project began to be discussed; and the lack of official occasions in which it would have been possible to clarify the nature of the proposed intervention, may have further alarmed the population. 
The story has negatively affected local community unity. Immediately "the positions of those who expressed concerns about the project were radicalized" in relation to those in favour of its realization Most of the interviewees argue the company reacted to local protest by showing little inclination to confrontation. Instead of seeking opportunities for openness and dialogue with those who expressed their criticisms of the project (citizens, committees, municipal administration), the company further exacerbated spirits by intervening in the local press and proving non-permeable to understanding the reasons for the criticisms levelled against them. 
It is a shared opinion among the interviewees that the company administrators have always presented the gasification plant project as necessary to relaunch industrial production, deriving from the reduction of the cost of electricity supply. It is a widespread opinion among the interviewees that in recent years, "the management of KME has put forward various proposals to guarantee the development of production and, above all, to allow the maintenance of the Fornaci di Barga plant. A series of very different proposals followed one after the other, which did not materialize. The previous project concerning the construction of hydroponics is often mentioned: the fact that this, like other projects, was never carried out would have led public opinion to doubt the seriousness of the company's industrial plan. ...respondents argue that there is a risk that with the construction of the gasification plant, the main production activity of the company becomes waste disposal." 
The main supporters of the construction of the gasification plant seem to be substantially people who work within the company, or who are related in some way to its production. The main positive aspect, found by most of the interviewees, that emerged from the situation that has arisen around the project is in the mobilization of citizens. Participation and adherence to opportunities for discussion, public events and initiatives promoted especially by the Together for the Dragonfly committee would be an important indicator of how the local community has reacted actively.
However, the "majority of respondents maintain that the local population is largely opposed to the project [...] According to what emerged from the interviews carried out, those in favor of the project would have confidence in the company's proposal and would be inclined to accept the thesis according to which the plant of gasification will not produce pollution of the surrounding environment." 
The fears interviewees expressed in relation to the project for the construction of the gasification plant are largely in the following areas: pollution and health of citizens, tourism, agriculture, production of bad smells, road traffic, checks on the operation of the plant, real estate market, trade.  The most recurrent of the concerns raised is that the gasification plant proposed by the company is not compatible with respect for the environment. The fear that more pollution will occur and the dispersion of substances harmful to the health of citizens into the air was widespread .
Furthermore, according to some interviewees, the proposal would be “functional to the creation of a new corporate core business (disposing of waste, rather than reducing the costs of supplying the electricity necessary for metal processing). In line with this opinion, there are those who argue that the project would have the support of some sectors of the institutions and the economic world willing to solve the problem of the disposal of paper mill production waste [...] A second, quite recurrent aspect in the interviews conducted...concerns the hypothesis that behind the project of the gasification plant there is no real desire of KME to relaunch the plant. According to this vision, the company would have hypothesized the construction of a plant, judged by the interviewees themselves to be difficult to realize (in the face of the conformation of the Valley, the various authorizations especially for the evident opposition in the population that it would have triggered) to facilitate a possible disengagement of the industrial group from the Fornaci di Barga plant [...] This hypothesis is also connected to the fact that the company would not have adequately involved the local population." 
Finally, "it is necessary to mention the hope of some of the interviewees that a new season can be opened in relations between the company and the population, centered on greater collaboration within the decision-making process. The hope is that, before reaching a definitive decision on the project to build the gasification plant, a confrontation will be created where all positions, including those of the population, can be assessed ". 
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
Committee Together for the Dragonfly. The environmental group La Libellula, which has been involved for years on environmental issues in the Serchio Valley, on the occasion of the KME project, formalizes its legal status in a basic organization that deals with civic initiatives, public communications, dissemination of information, petitions, confrontation events and protest against the KME pyrogasifier project. The committee was "established on January 9, 2019, with a deed registered with the Inland Revenue of Castelnuovo Garfagnana...in order to raise funds and assign tasks and related salaries to experts and technical consultants, so that they can analyze the project of KME and, in agreement with the committee, implement all observations and actions that are useful to counter and contest the project itself."  It will submit, in collaboration with the Municipality of Barga, the participation project to the Authority for the participation of the Tuscany Region in order to obtain support and financing.
Municipality of Barga is the territorial authority in which the project is located and the participatory process takes place. It collaborated on the project, presented by the Together for the Dragonfly Committee and presented to the Authority for the participation of the Tuscany Region. It is the authority called into question in the authorization procedure to express its own opinion at the Conference of Services together with other entities including the Region.
Tuscany Region, Environment Department and related offices. It supervises the environmental authorization procedure and is the main, if not the only, political contact that supports the project, in the public communications of its president Enrico Rossi.
Tuscany Region - Regional Council is the governance body that oversees (legislates), finances, designates the 3 members of the Regional Authority for the guarantee and promotion of participation (APP).
Regional Authority for the guarantee and promotion of participation (APP), established with the regional law 46/2013, has the task of promoting the participation of citizens in the construction processes of regional and local policies. It indexes periodic public tenders to support participatory processes in the regional territory. In this case, it awarded 16,000 euros gross for the overall organization of the process.
Matteo Garzella is an expert consultant, with training in contemporary history and in the organization and management of participatory processes and social reporting. He also gained political and institutional experience as President of the Municipal Council of Lucca, where he lives and his business is based. The remuneration obtained from the process is not indicated.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
Guarantee Committee was formed on the proposal of the tenant, in agreement with the promoters. The committee is composed of: a representative of the Together for the Dragonfly Committee (Maria Elena Bertoli, teacher), the parish priest of Fornaci di Barga (Giovanni Cartoni), a freelance lawyer (Silvia Giannini), and a representative of the Municipality of Barga (Elisa Nardi, responsible for services to the person of the Municipality). A representative of the KME company should have been present because he was invited; however, un-nominated by the company, he was absent from the beginning. The 5 meetings from 17/4/19 to 14/10/19 were all coordinated and conducted by Matteo Garzella.
Presentation assembly. This first public presentation meeting was held on 6/5/19, in the Sala 1 ° Maggio (Former elementary schools, Fornaci di Barga). The 4 members of the Guarantee Committee were present and presented to the public. From the images present in the summary on the process, it is estimated about 70 participants were present. A poster invitation to citizens appears from the advertising of the event. The communication was also disclosed by the Libellula Committee.
In-depth interviews. Each member of the Guarantee Committee has provided 3 names of "privileged observers", that is people representative of the community who are particularly informed, attentive or active on the case in question. With the so-called "snowball" methodology, each interviewee subsequently provided further contacts, thus reaching the number of 23 interviews. They were carried out from 21/5 to 2/7/19 by the conductor Matteo Garzella, after having contacted 28 people, following 3 denials and 2 unavailable.  Among the interviewees were representatives of committees, associations, schools, cultural institutes, small local businesses, trade unions and RSU (company union representatives), but no representative of the management of the KME company, nor of political parties. 
Intermediate meeting. In the auditorium of the ISI in Barga on 18/9/19 at 9 pm, in addition to the conductor, there were scheduled talks: the mayor of Barga, Caterina Campani and the president of the Regional Council, Eugenio Giani. The intervention of a representative of the Together for the Dragonfly Committee, Paola Ginestri, was also noted. The members of the Guarantee Committee were present, and the photos estimate about 60 people.
World Café. 3 meetings with the Woca method were organized on 16, 23, 30 October 2019, from 6 to 10 pm, in the lecture hall of the ISI in Barga. In agreement with the Guarantee Committee, 70 participants were selected by means of stratified random sampling of residents in the Municipality of Barga. 10 participants were identified by the Together for the Dragonfly Committee, among the subscribers of the petition delivered to the Region on 29/1/19, selecting them according to territorial origin, based on residence in the municipalities of the valley, giving the possibility to participate also to people who do not reside in the Municipality of Barga. The KME company and the company RSU were invited to identify 10 other participants, chosen from among the employees, but they did not.  The participants were welcomed by staff of about a dozen, probably volunteers from the area, but it is not indicated how they were selected. Also present were the members of the Guarantee Committee, the mayor and other administration officials as observers . For each work session, there was an introductory speech by an expert selected in agreement with the Guarantee Committee and invited. It was possible to ascertain the presence of 9 experts. In addition to the introductory speech, they were asked by the tables in the informal sessions or in the concluding phases for clarification. The moderator attended, introduced the topics and gave the floor. Finally, the meetings were open to the public, in the sense that anyone could attend the discussions as an observer in reserved chairs, without being able to intervene in any way.
Evaluation questionnaire. At the end of the Woca, participants were asked to fill in the evaluation questionnaire prepared and requested by the regional authority, but the number of participants is unknown.
City Council open meeting. On 12/12/19 the recommendations that emerged from the trial were presented to the City Council by Matteo Garzella. In addition to the councilors, the mayor and the council, there were some citizens who had participated in the process. From the photos it is estimated about twenty people were involved. 
Methods and Tools Used
The Guarantee Committee, not provided for by law but suggested by the Regional Authority for the guarantee and promotion of participation (APP) , plays a role similar to the Negotiation table (TdN) required by law 15/2018 of Emilia-Romagna. In this case it was assigned the following roles:
- supervise the various stages of the participatory process;
- verify the impartiality in the conduct of the process;
- analyze in advance any information material that will be distributed to participants and citizens;
- manage the external communication of the process exclusively throughout the period of its development (relations with the bodies of printing);
- monitor the participatory process, identifying any critical issues found in progress and make decisions for them passing;
- participate in the public presentation of the participatory process (Phase A of the process - Preparatory activities) and all public events that will be organized on the territory;
- identify the first list of stakeholders to be interviewed (phase B - Outreach);
- make decisions about the organization of the World Cafés (phase C - Resolution).
The main difference with the TdN of Emilia-Romagna is in the modalities of composition, more arbitrary in this case; reference is made to symbolic figures of the community and to the presumed impartiality, as in this case the parish priest, while in the TN there is greater reference to the negotiation aspects, the confrontation between actors with negotiation skills and the achievement of a preliminary agreement on the path of the process. It should be noted that in this case, in fact, one of the key players in the current issue, the KME company, did not appoint its own representative. Garzella wrote to the company via e-mail but no other institutional levers or public communications seem to have been put in place to solicit or encourage the company to collaborate.
In-depth interviews. A classic social survey tool, interviews focus on the qualitative aspects of information and leaves more space for the interviewee's free interpretation. In this case, the interview was semi-structured, with some specific issues that needed to be addressed. The interviews are transcribed and organized by themes, in such a way as to be presented in an aggregate and reasoned form.
Types of sampling. In this case, it does not happen often, technical specifications have been used to select the participants in a specific survey or event. The “snowball” recruitment method is very common in background and preliminary investigations, when a slightly less general idea of the context and situation to be studied is still needed. Starting from the contacts that initially exist, usually the clients, or the most obvious members of the community (institutional offices, representatives of associations, parish priests, traders), names are then obtained by recruiters from those initial contacts, thus increasing the sample following the unraveling of different relational networks.
The stratified random sampling is a random sampling, statistically elaborated on the basis of variables decided by the user (age groups), through special programs and having a database available (e.g. a municipal registry, as in this case). Knowing the distribution by age group (the number of age groups is determined by the user) of the population, as in this case, a random sample is obtained with a percentage of individuals with an age similar to that of the population.
Sampling with direct appointment assigned to the actors. It is not very common but it offers many advantages. It is a question of asking the actors most involved in the matter themselves to directly appoint a certain number of participants in a survey, in a vote at a deliberative event. Actors may be required to comply with certain representative or equivalence criteria (e.g. demographic, geographical or gender equality); inclusive (e.g. the identification of a certain number of people with disabilities or with different civil status or citizenship); exclusive (e.g. the exclusion of members or affiliates of the actor himself, such as militants or managers of their party or employees / managers of the company itself, all those who have already expressed clear opinions, etc.). The criteria can be the most varied; it is important that they are not determined by arbitrary choices, but reasoned and negotiated with the actors most involved on the issue (e.g. as in this one in the Guarantee Committee or in a TN). The advantage is that the champion cannot be judged as non-representative and the result of an unfortunate case or manipulated by the organizers, in addition to being generally less expensive in terms of calculation tools, which often require specialized personnel, and in terms of organizational time, since it requires the actors themselves to collaborate and also take charge of the recruitment of a certain number of participants.
World Café. WoCa is an interactive method of conversation that has been adopted by large companies, governments and communities around the world to animate networks of collaborative dialogue. WoCas are based on the principle that people already have the wisdom and creativity needed to face the toughest challenges and can learn a lot from spontaneous conversations with people outside their organization or the groups they are used to. Therefore, in the discussion mode, tables of 4-8 people are formed. After the first discussion on a question posed by the organizer of the event, a witness (or table-host or "host") of the table remains stationary while the others go to different tables. The witness records the ideas expressed and communicates them to new guests or the plenary facilitator before the next discussion begins. This goes on until all the questions are exhausted. In this case, the discussions were introduced by the moderator and by a scheduled report of an expert; furthermore, during the discussions in the tables the experts could be called up and questioned in the presence of the moderator and a member of the Guarantee Committee.
Evaluation questionnaire. Planned and prepared by the APP and to be administered at the end of each participatory process supported by it, it was a questionnaire with about ten questions that intended to detect the participant's judgments on certain quality criteria such as the impartiality of the conductor, the learning of knowledge, the effect on one's own convictions / initial positions, general satisfaction with the organization of the process, and future propensity to participate.
What Went On: Process, Interaction and Participation
In the preparation phase, the conductor was involved by the Together for the Dragonfly Committee in the design and drafting of the application submitted to the APP on 31/1/19 to obtain support and funding.
On 15/3/19, with the approval of the project and funding of 16,000 euros, the Guarantee Committee was formed, whose first session was held on 17/4/19. On this occasion, the roles and the overall path were explained without defining the final phase of the WoCa. In addition, the public presentation of the itinerary was organized.
On 6/5/19 the itinerary was presented to the public in a meeting in a room of the former elementary school of Fornaci di Barga. The meeting was presented by the representative of the La Libellula Committee who was responsible for managing the regional contributions for the process, followed by the intervention of the conductor who illustrated the general path of the process and introduced the members of the Guarantee Committee. No public interventions took place.
From the interviews carried out from 21/5 to 2/7 emerged the description of the background context (see above) and the topics to be submitted to the public meetings to be held in October with the WoCa. This issue was addressed in the meeting of the Guarantee Committee on 18/7, in which it was agreed that the interview report would be presented to the public and to the mayor. Furthermore, the deliberative appointments with Woca, the dates and the recruitment methods started. After evaluating the options of open access to all and sampling, stratified random sampling was selected for 70 participants along with the direct appointment of 10 participants by the La Libellula Committee from among the petition subscribers and 10 by the company KME among its employees.
In the meantime, Garzella continued to seek contact with the company, sending the material produced and inviting them to attend the Guarantee Committee without success.
In the third session of the Guarantee Committee, in addition to defining the recruitment procedures for the WoCa, Garzella and the representative of the La Libellula Committee identified 2 experts each, with different positions, for each topic to be addressed. The themes identified, which emerged from the interviews, which would be discussed in the tables of the three appointments with the WoCa method were :
- Health and environment, on 16/10.
- Economic development of the Valley, on 23/10.
- Employment and local community, 30/10.
It was also established that the following services would be present to support equal opportunities for access to the participatory process:
- hours from 18 to 22
- catering service for participants (in the 45-minute break, halfway through the meeting)
- baby-sitting service for those who request it
- transport service for those who request it
Criteria for the exclusion of participants was established. Anyone holding political positions in the national territory, in elective assemblies or in government bodies, in any autonomous body recognized by the Italian Constitution (municipalities, provinces, regions) as well as the State and other local authorities provided for by the Consolidated Law on Local Authorities (Legislative Decree 267/2000) were excluded. Furthermore, for the citizens selected from lists for random sampling, only one person per household would be allowed to participate. 
Of the intermediate assembly (of 18/9), aimed above all at informing about the progress of the path, and about the next appointments, there were no reports but only the slides used by the coordinator. At the beginning of the meeting, the Mayor and the President of the Regional Council intervened, as expected, encouraging and supporting the initiative.
In the fifth session of the Guarantee Committee, it clearly emerged that the intention of the corporate bodies was not to cooperate, thus ensuring that the places available for the Woca participants who should have been selected by them remained vacant. Therefore Garzella submit to the Guarantee Committee the question of whether it is appropriate to accept the participants selected by Libellula anyway. Apart from Silvia Nardi's vote against, the other members of the Guarantee Committee voted in favor of accepting them, but the reasons in support of the vote were not reported in the minutes. 
From the 3 Woca (of 16, 23, 30 October) the recommendations for the decision-makers emerged, which the coordinator presented according to the principle of recurrence, reporting the number of participants who support the position mentioned with respect to the total number of those present at the specific table. As an example, the results of the first two sessions follow. 
First session: Technical illustration of the gasification plant
Speakers: Dr. Antonio Moroni, professional in the "research and development" sector in the USA.
Question for the participants: What opportunities and threats do you see in the construction of the gasification plant?
Participants' recommendations emerged from the discussions at the tables, transcribed by the host in the post-it and reported on the bulletin board, then re-transcribed in electronic format by the staff volunteers.
The opportunities in the construction of the gasification plant are:
- Maintenance of company employment levels (5/16).
- Earnings for the company (4/16).
- Solving the problem of waste disposal in the paper industry (2/16).
The threats in the construction of the gasification plant are:
- Damage to the health of citizens (9/16).
- Increase in pollution (6/16).
- Damage to the tourism sector (5/16).
- Increase in vehicular traffic and heavy traffic (3/16).
- Devaluation of the value of the houses (3/16).
- Loss of jobs in the agricultural sector (3/16).
- Damage to commercial activities (2/16).
- Uncertainty about the functioning of the plant (2/16).
Second session: Correlation between pollution and cardiovascular and renal diseases
Speakers: Dr. Maria Angela Vigotti, Former University of Pisa.
Question for participants: In your opinion, can the KME project affect the current situation from a health and environmental point of view?
Recommendations from participants
- Yes, if the KME project is implemented, negative effects on public health and the environment are foreseeable (14/16).
- The effects produced would be those related to an industrial activity in any case already existing (1/16).
Volunteers participated in the organization of the WoCa, probably municipal officials, but no details, number, recruitment and training methods were found.
The collection of the final recommendations was sent in the form of a document to the decision makers: Tuscany Region, KME Company, and the Municipality of Barga. On 12/12/19 they were presented by Garzella, during an open session of the Municipal Council, in the presence of about twenty citizens. On this occasion, in addition to the illustration of the whole process, the results of the process evaluation questionnaire administered to the WoCa participants were also presented. The results show more than satisfactory results for each question: the objectives were clear, the information and clarifications were adequate, the climate was positive for the vast majority. The neutrality of management was respected as well as the possibility of expressing one's thoughts, for almost all respondents. It should be noted that 28% replied that their opinion "yes" changed "as a result of the participatory process" and for 12% it changed "in part". Almost all of them express their willingness to participate again in a similar type of process. 
The municipal councilors intervened asking for clarifications and commenting on the process and recommendations made by citizens. After the discussion, the City Council unanimously adopted the results of the process, making the recommendations of the citizens their own.  References to related administrative documents are not given.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
The process meant that the public positions that emerged in two years of confrontation and protest were strengthened and formalized in an organized confrontation that resulted in a resolution of the City Council. However, the Region has not acknowledged the results, as could have been foreseen, because the EIA procedure had already started without being connected to the process. Similarly, it does not appear to have been received by the company, which has never collaborated and has not even given a response signal to the invitations and updates that the host sent. This adverse and uncooperative attitude could be better investigated because there are no company communications on the matter. It could be better investigated whether the press channels or other media channels were used and in any case if and how the political authorities, the committees opposed to the project and the public in general, reacted to this behavior. In general, those who reject dialogue and do not participate are exposed to criticism and discredit of non-adequacy with respect to democratic values — of which political participation is not only a right but also a duty of the citizen — sanctioned by the Italian Constitution and common sense. It should be seen whether they have received and communicated their justifications correctly and if not, whether someone has pointed this out to them.
Analysis and Lessons Learned
The transparency of the process is lacking from the procedural aspect. In addition to the lack of references to the administrative acts of the EIA procedure, there is no reference to the concrete project of the gasifier, and the value of the work. It probably did not exceed 50 million euros, which is why the Public Debate on major works was not mandatory and the case was not deemed so relevant by the APP to start it anyway.
Overall, however, what has been done by the trial is given, although there is no information on remuneration of the conductor or the methods of recruiting staff at the World Cafe meetings, or detailed reports of the public assemblies, in particular the intermediate one. The percentage of denials of the citizens drawn and invited to the Woca would also be useful. The means of advertising is not reported well, perhaps since it has remained restricted to the small context. The sampling strategy adopted with the verdict of a mini-audience, makes this a typical deliberative case, but with greater effects in the medium and long term, also thanks to web archiving, offered by the Open Toscana platform (created by the Toscana APP) which makes the results and timely recommendations available to the public.
The process, however, suffered from the defection of the entire company (management and unions) due to an alleged failure — or failed — management, at least as can be deduced from the reports available on the process, of an initial negotiation phase with the key players. This leads to an obligatory partiality of the process. In these cases, the political authorities which protect the Constitution and public investments and take care of asking for social reporting from companies that have an impact on the territory, should also publicly urge them to respond to appeals and invitations by providing their objections both of method and of content. It often happens that large companies, often of foreign capital, defect participatory processes. It hardly ever happens that their management is called to social responsibility by the authorities; rather, it is seen as a voluntary option, a friendly concession.
However, the growing representativeness of the process and its communication have reached a sufficient number of citizens and a significant number of issues and positions, such as to provide the most democratic support available to the political decision in question and to ensure that the citizens who have participated fully assume responsibility for the consequences of the decision on the future of the territory and the activities that develop within it.
 Wikipedia, Fornaci di Barga, https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornaci_di_Barga (ril. 13/8/20).
 Boggi, T., The city council says no to the incinerator at the KME plant in Fornaci di Barga, La Gazzetta del Serchio, 30/6/17, http://www.movimentolalibellula.com/2017/06/ municipal-council-says-no-to-incinerator-at-the-kme-fornaci-barga-plant / (ril. 13/8/20).
 Garzella, M., Report on the results of the in-depth interviews, July 2019, p. 9, https://open.toscana.it/documents/1234669/... (ril. 13 / 8/20).
 Garzella, M., Report on the results of the in-depth interviews, July 2019, p. 9
 Garzella, M., Report on the results of the in-depth interviews, Pp. 10:18.
 Garzella, M., Report on the results of the in-depth interviews, Pp. 18:21.
 Garzella, M., Report on the results of the in-depth interviews., Pp. 22:24.
 Committee Together for the Dragonfly, The Committee Together for the Dragonfly is born, 17/1/19, http://www.movimentolalibellula.com/2019/01/nasce-il-comitato-insieme-per-la-libellula / (release 13/8/20).
 Garzella, Report on the results of the interviews, doc. cit., p. 3.
 Garzella, M., Report on the results of the in-depth interviews, p. 4.
 Garzella, M., Summary of the participatory process, December 2019, p. 30, https://open.toscana.it/documents/12... (ril. 13/8/20).
 Garzella, M., Summary of the participatory process, p. 35.
 Garzella, M., Summary of the participatory process, P. 96.
 Garzella, M., Interim Assembly, 9/18/19, p. 29, https://open.toscana.it/documents/1234669/... (ril. 13/8/20).
 Garzella, M., Interim Assembly, p. 30.
 Garzella M., Minutes of the meeting of the Guarantee Committee no. 5, del 14/10/19, https://open.toscana.it/documents/1234669/...(ril. 13/8/19).
 Garzella, M., Raccomandazioni dei cittadini, novembre 2019, https://open.toscana.it/documents/1234669/0/Raccomandazioni+dei+cittadini....(ril. 13/8/20).
 Garzella, M., Synthesis of the process, doc. cit., pp. 84:92.
 Garzella, M., Synthesis of the process, p. 97-98.
 Open Toscana, Tutti nella stessa Barga, https://open.toscana.it/web/tutti-nella-stessa-barga (ril. 13/8/20).