General Data
Name of instrument Stakeholder Commission (Conferenza dei servizi)
Country IT
Spatial level federal state
Type Voluntary approaches and agreements / cooperation
Subtype Conflict prevention and resolution
Description This procedure describes the establishment of a forum which, according to National Law no. 241/90, is summoned when: a) A simultaneous survey is advisable of the stakes held by different public bodies on (the effects of) a given decision-making procedure; b) The promoting public body has not obtained within a given delay (usu. 15 days) the necessary consent/agreement having been duly requested to the other public bodies involved in the decision-making procedure; c) An agreement is to be stipulated ('Accordo di programma') between different public bodies. Note that this procedure typically unites authorities pertaining to different spatial scales, from national to local. A CdS can also be held at municipal (or inter-municipal) level, according to National Law DLgs 112/98 (and related laws): see entry 'Counter for Consolidated Procedure'.
General objectives Simplify the traditional decision-making processes. Ensure proper coordination/agreement between the involved public stakeholders when implementing programs, interventions or other public works.
General objectives keywords public participation; stakeholder involvement;
Responsible Federal state/Province authority
Stakeholder Involved Local authority/Municipal council; others;
Reference Laws (National: 241/90; Regional - federal: several). http://mapserver3.ldpassociati.it/arezzo/glossario.cfm
General assessment of strength and weakness Strength: Enhance responsibility, transparency, cooperation and build mutual trust. Speed up decision-making.
Weakness: Stronger stakeholders can easily prevail. Exclusion/marginalization (usu.) of non-public/weaker stakeholders. A compromise decision is likely to be made, not always matching the common good requirements.
Metadata
Date of entry 2007/05/01
Implementation
Legal status mandatory
Extension very frequent (> 50 % municipalities)
Comment
Type of monitoring Qualitative / descriptive reporting
Characteristics
Preconditions for implementation
General comment
Assessment
Relevance
Status -
Ranking 0
Remark general instrument, relevance for land ressource management depends on the decision to be taken
Acceptance
Status municipal administration. Local economy, environmental NGOs, municipal residents, superordinate administrations
Ranking 5
Remark
Implementation
Status -
Ranking 4
Remark -
Feasibility
Status Legislation, political will, participation/support
Ranking 3
Remark -
Effectiveness
Status Direction of effect, acceptability, perpetuity
Ranking 3
Remark Considering the range of stakeholders, types of effects are difficult to assess