Making civic monitoring matter: reflections from the “Transport for People” event in Warsaw

On March 13, 2025, I had the opportunity to participate in the “Transport for People” meeting, held at the Center for European Transport Projects headquarters in Warsaw. Organized with the support of European Commission – DG REGIO and the OECD, the event brought together policymakers, researchers, civil society organizations, and academics to explore how citizens can play a role in shaping transport infrastructure and mobility policies.

The audience was composed mainly of civil servants from transportation agencies, both national and local, as well as local government officials and mobility experts from across Poland. Other participants included representatives from civil society organizations, researchers, and practitioners working on participatory governance.

GZM’s pilot project

A key focus of the event was the GZM Citizen Forum on Transport, an inspiring pilot project that tested deliberative citizen engagement in transport planning (here is a brief summary). Developed with the technical assistance of the OECD Open Governance Unit and funded by the European Commission’s DG REGIO, the project aimed to demonstrate how citizen participation can make infrastructure investments more transparent and accountable, particularly for projects funded by the European Regional Development Fund.

The pilot introduced innovative participatory methods that we at Monithon are considering integrating into our civic monitoring methodology. Among the most inspiring elements were:

• The combination of citizen input with expert guidance. Citizens engaged in “study walks” alongside transport and policy experts, providing on-the-ground feedback while gaining insights from professionals.
• The use of random selection to ensure a more representative public participation process. Unlike traditional consultations that attract only the most motivated individuals, the pilot experimented with inclusive selection methods to reach a broader demographic.

At the same time, the event discussions highlighted challenges in implementing deliberative participation:

• Sustainability of participation: Since the process was designed as a one-time engagement, citizens were not expected to continue their involvement beyond the initial forum.
• Privacy and data access: GDPR restrictions made it difficult to obtain data on residents, a common challenge across EU countries when trying to implement random selection in participatory processes.
• Financial incentives for participants: The pilot provided a small stipend for participants, raising questions about whether financial compensation could create bias in citizen selection. The experts leading the pilot responded that the payment was symbolic, covering three days of participation, and was not a strong enough incentive to distort the process.

I look forward to receiving updates on future steps of this action, including when government officials will process suggestions.

Issues in public participation

Beyond the technical aspects of participation, the discussion also touched on broader issues related to when and how to engage citizens in decision-making. In particular:

• What role should citizens play? Can they provide useful expertise, or are there areas where policy decisions should rely solely on specialists? The border between these two areas remains blurred. One common answer was:
  “Start with a clear diagnosis → Choose the right method → Identify the right target group.”
• The long timeline of major infrastructure projects. In the transport sector, national projects can take up to 15 years to complete. This raises the challenge of how to ensure that citizen input at the beginning of the process remains relevant years later.

A key takeaway from the discussion was the importance of following up with citizens after participation processes. Too often, people provide input, but never hear back about whether their suggestions were taken into account. Even more critically, it is essential to monitor whether the commitments made in participatory processes are actually implemented.

This is where civic monitoring comes into action. Citizen engagement should not stop at consultation—it should be linked to long-term accountability mechanisms. Ensuring that what was decided on paper actually gets executed is at the core of Monithon’s mission.

The challenge of implementing civic monitoring recommendations

As part of the panel discussion “Good Intentions Are Not Enough: The Hard Reality of Implementing Participatory Solutions,” I shared insights from Monithon’s experience with civic monitoring. In particular, I discussed why, even when citizens provide detailed monitoring reports, recommendations often fail to be implemented.

Monithon mainly operates with a bottom-up approach, meaning that citizens select projects, conduct monitoring, and engage policymakers directly. This model has led to several success stories, such as the Campobasso pedestrian overpass project, monitored by a team of high school students called Walking People and engaged through project At the School of OpenCoehesion. These students didn’t just evaluate the project—they organized interviews, public events, and proposed redevelopment ideas, many of which were implemented. Their engagement helped accelerate the project’s completion, and today, their student-designed logo is a permanent feature of the overpass, symbolizing their civic contribution.

However, this type of success is not always guaranteed. One of the biggest challenges we see is that local governments—who are often the target of monitoring reports—were not the ones who initiated the monitoring process. As a result, they frequently claim that they lack resources, experience, or a culture of participation to act on the findings. This creates a paradox: at the national or regional level, authorities actively promote participatory initiatives, but at the local level, where action is needed, municipalities sometimes struggle to respond effectively.

How can we make civic monitoring more effective?

Institutionalizing Local Accountability Mechanisms. One promising approach is the to create structured but flexible partnership mechanisms between municipalities and civil society. These would ensure that municipalities at least engage with monitoring reports and provide responses, even if they are not forced to adopt recommendations.

Using the Media to Amplify Civic Monitoring Results. One of the most effective ways to ensure civic monitoring has an impact is through media engagement. Monithon has a partnership with Il Sole 24 Ore, Italy’s leading economic newspaper, to publish investigations based on citizen monitoring reports. With support from DG REGIO, we have also contributed to the training of young female journalists to further develop these stories. This kind of media visibility puts pressure on institutions to respond to civic monitoring findings.

Providing More Support for Local Governments. If municipalities claim they lack resources or expertise, then regional or national institutions should provide direct support through:

• Training programs to help municipalities work with citizen-generated data.
• Funding incentives for local governments that actively respond to monitoring results.
• Technical assistance to guide local administrators on how to implement recommendations effectively.

Moving from participation to impact

Civic monitoring has the potential to make public investments more transparent and effective, but only if institutions—especially at the local level—don’t just receive recommendations but actively respond to them.

At Monithon, we are committed to working with institutions to ensure that civic monitoring isn’t just an exercise in participation—but a tool for real change. The “Transport for People” event highlighted both the possibilities and limitations of participatory processes, reinforcing the need to connect public participation with long-term monitoring and accountability.