Estonia

Tartu which was the PB pilot city in Estonia developed and adopted a new local legislation (act) regarding the regulation of PB in the city. The other Estonian municipalities who started to implement PB later, have taken this legislation as a basis and adjusted it when needed to their own context and specified model.

As the recent study showed, the municipalities do not innovate much with PB, mostly the model is similar everywhere with slight modifications. Some rural municipalities for instance have started to apply the regional principle in order to finance the ideas to create more equal chances for smaller places/villages to get their ideas (objects) funded as well.

Some years ago, the great innovation one municipality applied was to use PB as a model to promote healthy lifestyle. The model was as follows: people proposed ideas on sport-related objects (tennis court, etc.) and voted the ideas. The winning idea was only then implemented by the municipality if people collectively achieve a certain number of exercising hours (jogging, swimming, walking etc.- there was a special interactive online tool to report on their hours). It was really well received. In terms of technical innovation, most municipalities use common central online platforms (there are two different platforms in Estonia).

In 2011 e-Governance Academy, a non-governmental organization organized a seminar for Estonian municipalities introducing the main concept and principles of PB and also some international practices, such as those in Brazil.

In 2013, in cooperation with e-Governance Academy, the City of Tartu introduced the first PB process in Estonia, making it a pioneer and then many other municipalities followed their example.

As mentioned earlier, most of the Estonian municipalities followed the example of the City of Tartu and decided to implement PB processes. Over time, however, there have been adjustments applied by the local authorities taking into account the context and the needs of the municipality for a better implementation of the PB process. For more information, the PB practice of the City of Tartu is described in detail here.

1. PB have been suspended: 5%
2. PB continued to function normally: 90%
3. PB have undergone changes/adaptations: 5%

There are no trends to be noticed during the pandemic since most of the processes are online. In those where there is also a deliberation phase (open events to present ideas and discuss them with experts) were organized during summertime since it was already possible for people to gather. However, one might say that there are more proposals submitted regarding outdoors sports and culture activities, which is in line with the current lifestyle.

It is important to ask what the impact of PB has been. One outcome is that there are all those new ideas, some of them traditional and others very innovative, which would not have been thought of in the offices of town halls. However, what is more important is the broader impact it has had in Estonia it has made the engagement process real and easy to follow for more than 20 other municipalities. It shows that engagement bears real fruits, has tangible outcomes. Finally, it has always been my concern that public sector organizations are expected to be innovative, but they are usually not allowed to take risks. Nevertheless, without taking risks and experimenting and improving there is no way to be innovative. The PB process helps local authorities to cultivate the understanding that it is fine for public sector organizations to take risks and even fail to innovate.

Another major learning point is that this process has changed the way the local governments are making all its decisions. The process of PB has sparked civic activism in many places, one idea gives birth to another. And it has strongly affected the civic space. In the City of Tartu, the same crowdsourcing model, combining online tools (map-solutions) with face-toface methods has been successfully used for many urban planning initiatives.

When the process is well designed and the context is considered, the model is easily scalable and can be replicated elsewhere. For instance, our organization has successfully piloted a similar model and related e-tools in a very different context from ours, in Georgia.

Finally, on completing a recent study, it is possible to conclude that local elected representatives recognise the following as the main results of the PB: activation of small communities, who join their forces to find solutions to most burning problems; new great small ideas have popped up which have been funded also from other sources; clear signals for local authorities on key problems; etc.