Since the successful referendum, which prevented the construction of buildings on the former airfield of Tempelhof, many intensive discussions have been going on how the area should be used in the future. With its size of more than 360 ha, the airfield is one of the biggest inner-city parks in the world, making any discussion a city wide issue. In this framework it was decided, that in a one year process the citizens of Berlin, in cooperation with the administration, should come up with a development plan, providing guidelines for the future of the airfield. The development plan should define spaces for different needs and uses on the airfield, ranging from recreation, to history and from sport to nature conservation. CRISP was part of this process, being responsible for dealing with conflicts which might occur during the negotiations and consult the persons responsible for the process in this manner. Therefore we were working intensively on trust building between the different stakeholders involved in the process. Our goal was to establish a constructive attitude towards the collaboration process. As opinions and ideas were collected from different parts of society it was of great importance to establish a culture of acceptance of different perspectives on the future development of the airfield. Furthermore we were consulting the process coordinators and the staff of the administration in conflict sensitivity, and process management. In the end the development plan was accepted by all stakeholders involved. It will be now implemented by the Berlin parliament and can been seen here: tempelhofer-feld.berlin.de
Citizens being actively engaged in the process of creating the development plan. Staff of administration and process coordination.
The skepticism towards the cooperation with actors from different areas was transformed into a culture of constructive cooperation. As our contribution was designed in a way of permanently accompanying the process we could always interfere and facilitate in cases of occurring conflicts. This led to the result that those actors who have been distrustful towards the process were integrated and played a constructive role during the process. In the end our contribution helped enabling the process to function, as the actors involved were not mainly focusing on dividing issues, but tried to identify common grounds. In order to build more sustainable and trustful structures more time would have been needed.