CONTENTS

J. Duhok Univ., Vol. 14, No.1 (Pure and Eng. Sciences), Pp 1-8, 2011
1. to re-anounce the technocratic attitude for
defining the optimum in favour of the
construction of various open alternatives on
which to confront with all the interested
subjects.
2. that the method of comparison between the
alternatives and their consequences at a system
level be actually done also by the sectorial
policies promoted by the municipal or districtual
authorities, utilizing for such purposes the most
common cognitive resources and the specific
instruments of the planning itself.
3. That new representation and communication
forms be experimented for the territorial
consequences of what agreed between social,
economical and institutional actors.
4. that there must be full consciousness by all the
participants that the planning is a continuous,
fatiguing and complex process; the plan is a
contract which the actors, present on a certain
territory, undertake for its transformation; once
concluded it is indispensable to start to think and
to build the future forms of new contracts which
will rule what not foreseen or not foreseeable up
to that moment, that will improve the
representation of the interests which are
considered excluded; which will include new
knowledge.
The planning process is certainly more
important than the plan, but the existence of a
plan changes the process, because it requires a
firm and clear political projectuality, its potential
contribute to the setting up for a better agenda of
the regional policies (i.e., well as of their
comprehensive coherent direction) is very
important.
The form that the territorial plan assumes in
taking into account the exigencies and the
perspectives up to now recalled is the following:
A strategic reference scenario for the whole
territory denotes the local identities 3 and it
indicates the desirable development lines.
To the indication of a series of strategic projects
in actuation of the plan, with the concourse of
the other bodies, is assigned the task of
deepening the possible solutions and the
feasibility conditions for what it concerns
“emergency” problems.
A ruling system which introduces innovative
agreements procedures, limits the rules, recalls
the directives, foresees the municipalities’
involvement in the management of protected
areas as well as in other matters of over-local
interest.
The general target that the plan assumes is
the reaching of an environmental and social
sustainability 4 for the whole territory, that is to
say forms of development which are able to
safeguard and increase the natural and social
resources and the area’s specific identities and
by the thrust of a cooperative 5 approach.
From control to self-control: the choice is that
to promote, in lieu of the control and of the tie,
new agreements instruments such as forms of
self-control between local subjects in the
decision moment (Magnani, A. 2000). It is what
today goes under the name of “governance”: the
government of the cooperative and conflictual
interactions between the actors who act in the
territory and who transform it, instead of the
direct government of the territory’s small single
pieces.
The effort is that to define the reciprocal
autonomies (amongst the various authorities),
adapted into a normative system which strongly
limits the rules; as a support to projectuality
forms on general matters, also with the scope to
build projects capable to acquire external
resources.
THE PLAN APPROACH TO THE
TERRITORIAL PROBLEMS
Within the negotial procedure the strategic
and ruling functions explicate territorial effects
(transformation, explotation, conservation,
protection etc), not directly but through
collective local subjects. In order that this
happens it is necessary that such subjects might
act as collective actors on territorial basis, i.e. as
territorial local systems 6 . With this expression
are intended public and private subject's local
aggregations (or “nets”) able to organize them
and to organize their own territory to interact
with external subjects and thus realizing
common shared projects.
The negotial process with the local collective
subjects must therefore be seen both as an
operational and latent identities “hearing” phase
and as operational identities construction
moments (Porter M., 1987), around over-local
scale territorial projects. In such a way the plan’s
promotion and planning role is explicated. It
goes into effect through “knot” (“set up” of the
local systems) and net policies (connection of
more local systems around over-local projects).
Under this point of view the local systems (and
therefore also the local identities with the above
3