Ref. Ares(2021)4385544 - 06/07/2021
Conference on the Future of Europe
Design of Citizens’ Panels
Work Package 2 Deliverable
Process Design
Executive summary
The following deliverable describes the design of the deliberative process for the Citizens’ Panels of the
Conference on the Future of Europe to ensure a high-quality deliberative process for all Panels, following
three core values outlined in the Joint Declaration on the CoFoE: Inclusion, Transparency and Openness.
This document has been elaborated with regards to previous experiences of the Consortium and based on
the requisites for a qualitative deliberative process. Far from the objective to compel or restrict, the goal of
this document is to provide the most efficient and qualitative propositions for the design of the Panels, in
line with the Executive Board’s decisions.
Adapting the working hypothesis to the decisions of the Executive Board, WP2 has progressively provided
a solid structure and main features that can ensure a proper implementation of the Panels, following a
method that fits the requirements of the CoFoE’s ambition.
This work package sets the conditions for the recruitment of participants (citizens), the configuration and
setting of the deliberation process, the preparatory and intersessional work as well as the coordination of
all facilitation and coordination teams. This work has been complemented by a statistical analysis setting
the ground on the Panels’ distribution, the multilingualism, as well as youth representation in the Citizens’
Panels of the CoFoE, thus ensuring the connection of the design to the rationale that governs the CoFoE
initiative.
The logic and content of the three core sessions of the Panels and the interactions between Panels, the
purpose and challenges of the follow-up work, as well as the status and purpose of intersessional activities
with citizens are main components of the methodology of the Panels. The high interlinkages of the Panels
both with Plenary and with the online Platform have also been addressed, either through recommendations
or through direct integration of feedback mechanisms designed to ease the flow of information and the
coherence of the overall process.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
2 / 121
link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 12 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 19 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 23 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 26 link to page 27 link to page 28
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
7
1.1 General principles
7
1.2 Main working hypothesis
8
2. Methodology
9
2.1 General principles to achieve a high-quality deliberative process
9
2.2 Multilingualism
12
2.3 Launching event and/or kick-off meeting
15
2.3.1 Principle of a launching event
15
2.3.2 Features for a launching event
15
2.3.3 Principle of a kick-off meeting
15
2.3.4 Features for a kick-off meeting
16
2.4 Logic of the three core sessions of each Panel and key issues of methodology
16
2.4.1 Principles
16
2.4.2 Main features and options
17
2.4.3 Panels’ inner logic for the three main sessions
19
2.4.5 Risks and opportunities of online sessions
21
2.4.6 Intersessional activities
22
2.5 Follow-up Session
23
2.5.1 Principle
23
2.5.2 Features and options for the follow-up session
24
2.6 Focus on interaction between the Panels
24
2.6.1 Principle
24
2.6.2 Interactions
24
2.6.3 Cross-Panel coordination
25
2.7 Use of the Digital Platform by the members of the Panels
25
2.7.1 Principle
25
2.7.2 Overal goals of the Platform in the frame of the Panels
25
2.7.3 Different spaces for differents paths
26
2.7.4 Focus on the inputs from the Platform to the Panels
26
2.8 Focus interaction between Panels and Plenary
27
3. Recruitment, participant’s Secretariat and long-term citizens’ commitment
28
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
3 / 121
link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 28 link to page 29 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 30 link to page 31 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 33 link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 35 link to page 35 link to page 37 link to page 38 link to page 38 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 40 link to page 41 link to page 41 link to page 42 link to page 42 link to page 42
3.1 Principles
28
3.2 Framing of the recruitment
28
3.2.1 General principles
28
3.2.2 Deadlines, modalities and delays for recruitment
28
3.2.3 Replacement and attrition
28
3.2.4 Compensation
29
3.2.5 Next steps
30
3.3 Recruitment strategy, to select the participants
30
3.3.1 General Principles
30
3.3.2 Defining the criteria of ideal composition of Panels
31
3.3.3 Preparing sortition
32
3.3.4 Gathering al the documents and information needed for recruitment
32
3.3.5 The recruitment
33
3.3.6 Next steps
34
3.4 Contract, accompaniment and welcome package
34
3.4.1 General principles
34
3.4.2 First steps in the conference: charter, welcome package and booklets
35
3.4.3 Accompaniment
35
3.4.4 Next steps
37
4. Team and Facilitation team
38
4.1 Overview of staffing
38
4.2 Interpreters
39
4.2.1 General principles
39
4.2.2 Recruiting of interpreters
39
4.2.3 Guidelines for interpretation and multilingual working structures
40
4.2.4 Preparation of briefings for interpretation teams
40
4.3 Facilitation team
40
4.3.1 General principles
40
4.3.2 The different roles and responsibilities in the moderation team
41
4.3.3 The training of facilitators
41
4.3.4 Guiding rules for facilitators
42
4.4 Coordination team
42
4.5 Communication team (internal)
42
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
4 / 121
link to page 42 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 45 link to page 47 link to page 47 link to page 47 link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 51 link to page 51 link to page 52 link to page 52 link to page 52 link to page 52 link to page 52 link to page 53 link to page 53 link to page 53 link to page 55 link to page 56 link to page 56
4.5.1 Communication between the staff of one Panel
42
4.5.2 Communication between al facilitators of the Panels (creating a community)
43
4.6 Next steps
43
5. Organizational and technical matters & general guidelines
44
5.1 General principles
44
5.2 For on-site sessions
44
5.2.1 Location
44
5.2.2 Infrastructure
45
5.2.3 Next steps
47
5.3 For fully online sessions and for online intersessional activities
47
5.3.1 Principle
47
5.3.2 Features of the Platform used for online sessions
48
5.3.3 Focus on the facilitation for online sessions or on-line intersession activities
48
5.3.4 Guidelines for participants for digital tools, especial y for videoconference
49
5.4 Participants guidelines
49
5.4.1 Principles
49
5.4.2 Dedicated tools
49
5.4.3 Creating a sense of community
50
5.5 Guidelines for visitors
50
5.5.1 Principles
50
5.5.2 Who are the visitors?
51
5.5.3 What rules apply to them?
51
5.6 COVID-19 measures and sanitary precautions
52
5.6.1 Developing COVID-19 guidelines for Citizen Panels for any in-person meetings
52
5.6.2 Material to provide
52
5.6.3 Breaks and meals
52
5.6.4 The venue
52
5.6.5 Sensitization and prevention
53
5.6.6 Control procedures and evidence gathering on the application of the rules
53
5.7 Next steps
53
6. Annexes
55
6.1 Complementary documents
56
Annex 1 - Common terminology
56
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
5 / 121
link to page 60 link to page 63 link to page 66 link to page 68 link to page 79 link to page 83 link to page 86 link to page 89 link to page 96 link to page 97 link to page 97 link to page 98 link to page 99 link to page 101 link to page 102 link to page 107 link to page 119 link to page 121
Annex 2 - Selection of citizens - Simulation per country
60
Annex 3 - Simulation on language repartition per subgroup
63
Annex 4 - Compensation of citizen juries per countries
66
Annex 5 - Budget Narrative for the citizen’s Panels (version April 27)
68
Annex 6 - Biases in deliberative processes
79
Annex 7 – Recommendations for citizens’ panels at national level
83
Annex 8 - Recommendations on citizens’ participation in the Plenary
86
Annex 9 - Multilingual Digital Platform’s functionalities
89
Annex 10 - Visual representation of the Citizens’ Panels process
96
6.2 Draft documents for next milestones
97
Annex 11 - Guide for facilitation (plan)
97
Annex 12a - Example of the invitation letter to citizens
98
Annex 12b - Example of a Mission Statement
99
Annex 13 – Preparing a FAQ for citizens
101
Annex 14 - COVID-19 protocol for offline dialogues
102
Annex 15 - How to run a dialogue online
107
Annex 16 - Charter with the citizens
119
Annex 17 - Welcome pack
121
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
6 / 121
1. Introduction
1.1 General principles
The
Joint Declaration on the CoFoE stresses 3 core values for the Citizens’ Panels: Inclusion, Transparency
and Openness. The design of the process of the Panels is conceived to fulfill these values and ensure a high-
quality deliberation.
Inclusion
● Language: no barrier of language: each participant will talk in his/her language
● Importance of orality
● Inclusion of young people
● Diversity of walks of life
● A well-intentioned accompaniment by all the staffing, especially dedicated secretariat
● User friendly online tools
● Equal opportunity for people with disabilities (and resources dedicated to them, for instance if there
are deaf, or mute people, etc.)
Transparency
● On the process of the Panels: composition, programs, documents given to the Panels, etc.
● Dissemination of the results of the Panels: Reports will be publicized
● Commitment of the Conference of Europe to follow-up on the outputs of the Panels and use them
in their in decision making
● Presence of independent researchers and observers
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
7 / 121
link to page 8
Openness
● Openness of the deliberation: all topics and issues are allowed
● Openness to bottom-up agendas: citizens will decide of part of the issues they want follow in the
general topic framing, they will request for hearings and information
● Openness of the data: the information material of the topics of each Panel, results of the
questionnaires, final recommendations of the Panels. Part of deliberations should also be recorded
or streamed, even maybe public
● Plenary sessions could be live-streamed, and results will be disseminated through the Multilingual
Digital Platform
● Openness of the reflection of citizens of the Panels, as they will use the results of the Platform
● Panels are not black boxes: some parts of the sessions of the Panels could be opened to observers
(academics, media, NGO, public, etc.), online or in real life.
Each Panel will work during several sessions, will produce a report and will be supported by digital tools.
Due to the uncertainty of the pandemic situation in Europe, the design of the process shall integrate different
alternatives towards physical and digital formats. This is the reason why this note integrates different
scenarios.
1.2 Main working hypothesis1
● Number of Panels: 4
● Number of participants per Panel: 200, randomly selected, with an over representation of young
people
● A launch event before the summer about the CoFoE in general and to announce the Panels
● An online kick-off meeting common to all the Panels in September 2021
● 3 sessions of 2 to 3 days per Panel (minimum 2 in-person if COVID19 situation allows it)
● Intersessional activities
● A follow-up session common to all the Panels
1 As of 7 May 2021.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
8 / 121
link to page 9
2. Methodology
2.1 General principles to achieve a high-quality deliberative process
The quality of a deliberative process rests upon four main criteria that will guide the design of the Panels
of CoFoE:
Inclusiveness, Deliberation, Relevance and Fairness2. Any design should respect these
criteria. We define hereafter how these criteria can be translated in the frame of the Panels.
Criteria
Subcriteria
Example of method
Inclusiveness
Diversity
Random selection of participants: To select
participants, we suggest a sortition aspiring to provide
equal chances in the best possible way (given practical
constraints) by civic lottery of citizens. This is,
however, an ideal approach, that the Design of the
Panels will aim at, without the guarantee to achieve
this goal.
Stratification and quotas will provide representative
samples through the citizens from different countries
in each subgroup.
Opportunity for each to
Subgroups most of time, facilitation, written and oral
contribute
contributions, anonymous feedback
Overcoming of power
Facilitation, role playing games, rules to distribute the
structures
speech inside the groups
Consideration
Friendly and neutral moderation and facilitation,
quality of informal moments, be considered as skilled.
Inclusion of stakeholders Hearings, contributions, speed dating
2 See Hans-Liudger Dienel(Hg.), Antoine Vergne(Hg.), Kerstin Franzl(Hg.), Raban D. Fuhrmann(Hg.), Hans J.
Lietzmann(Hg.), Die Qualität von Bürgerbeteiligungsverfahren (2014), oekom verlag, München, ISBN:
9783865816535; See also Antoine VERGNE, « Qualité de la participation »,
in CASILLO I. avec BARBIER R.,
BLONDIAUX L., CHATEAURAYNAUD F., FOURNIAU J-M., LEFEBVRE R., NEVEU C. et SALLES D. (dir.),
Dictionnaire critique et interdisciplinaire de la participation, Paris, GIS Démocratie et Participation, 2013, ISSN :
2268-5863. URL
: http://www.dicopart.fr/fr/dico/qualite-de-la-participation. (visited 2021.04.10); See also annex
7 - National Initiatives p. 63 and OECD
website.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
9 / 121
Inclusion of broader
Contributions from the Platform, possibilities of
public
broadcasting, etc.
Deliberation
Input coming from the
Diagnostic, discussions, testimonies: The first source
group / the Platform
of information are participants themselves
Input coming from
Presentations, movies, images, testimonies
organized groups
Input coming from
Presentation from researchers
science
Building visions and
Value based work on vision, utopias and dystopias
common ground
exercises
Discussion on arguments Pros and cons, role playing games, exploration of
controversies, debate with speakers
Building agreements and Test proofing of propositions and recommendations,
disagreements
listing and articulation of arguments
Iterative processes
Iterative process during each Panel sessions: between
subgroups and Plenary work
Iterative process between the different Panels (if
possible)
Iterative process to produce final output: Back and
forth with Plenary, improvement of recommendations
between the sessions and during the sessions
Output-oriented process Production of actionable recommendations, definition
of a vision
Relevance
Mandate by Plenary of
Mandate letter and opening speech
CoFoE / mandate by
Executive Board
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
10 / 121
Articulated with Plenary Several citizens form each Panel, randomly selected
of CoFoE, for an
will assist / be members of the Plenary (the citizens
iterative dialogue in
could change at each Plenary, in order to share this
order to have “feedback experience of dialogue, and make the proof of the
loops” on the work of the “citizen’s competence” )
Panels and the agenda of
the Plenary.
Interaction with
Speed dating, hearings, meetings on the ground,
stakeholders and
intersessional work
decision makers
Inclusion of existing and Exchange with decision makers and EU institutions
upcoming measures
Vision-based
Vision and recommendations as two parts of the report
recommendations to
avoid both naivety and
technicism
Evaluation
Internal and external evaluation (cf. WP 7)
Fairness
Time given to
Chaperones, moderation team, time, more than one
participants to navigate
session
the process
Transparency of the
Clear role for observers and media
process balanced with
trust and secure process
for participants
Guarantee of trust
Mandate, published rules/ charter, guardians
(“guarantors”)
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
11 / 121
link to page 12
Human centered
For instance, in Plenary discussions, working with
discussions
photo language and creative methods, self-assessment
and individual work, working structures and lead
questions for discussions, open space, informal
discussions, get together, informal meetings during
evenings and farewell parties, interactions with artists,
building and site visits, etc.
2.2 Multilingualism
Multilingualism is an important issue for European Panels: each participant must be able to talk in his/her
own language and must be able to exchange with other participants from other countries, in order to avoid
a silo of language.
In order to ensure smooth discussions between participants, with constant involvement of moderators and
interpreters, we propose to limit the number of languages per group from 3 to 4. A relay language can be
used when interpreting many languages (indirect interpreting into the lesser used languages).
There are
24 official languages in the EU, i.e. Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English,
Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish,
Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish
3.
Participants are gathered in Plenary (interpretation in 24 languages) or in subgroups (ideally subgroups of
10 people), in which 3 or 4 languages are spoken — including a language among the following ones: French,
German, English, Italian, Spanish — which requires the accompaniment of each group by 3 interpreters
sharing the relay language.
3 Irish and Maltese could be considered as second languages and not to be spoken in the Panels without disadvantages
for concerned people. In order to ease the distribution of languages throughout subgroups, an option could be to
reduce
the number of languages to 22, taking into account countries where there are different or similar languages (see
Option 1 for the distribution of languages).
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
12 / 121
Example of language distribution in subgroups:
Option 1: 20 tables of 10 people | 4 languages
Tables
Composition
Table 1
German / English / Italian / Polish
Table 2
German / English / Italian / Polish
Table 3
German / Italian / Polish / Romanian
Table 4
German / Hungarian / Italian / Polish
Table 5
German / Italian / Romanian / Spanish
Table 6
German / Italian / Romanian / Spanish
Table 7
German / Estonian / Dutch / Spanish
Table 8
German / Lettonian / Dutch / Spanish
Table 9
German / Lithuanian / Dutch / Spanish
Table 10
German / Portuguese / Slovenian / Spanish
Table 11
French / Portuguese / Slovak / Spanish
Table 12
Dutch / Danish / French / Spanish
Table 13
Dutch / French / Spanish / Swedish
Table 14
Bulgaria / Croatian / French / Swedish
Table 15
Bulgarian / Croatian / Czech / French
Table 16
German / Finnish / French / Italian
Table 17
French / Hungarian / Italian / Polish
Table 18
Greek / French / Italian / Polish
Table 19
Czech / Danish / Italian / Polish
Table 20
French / Greek / Italian / Polish
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
13 / 121
Option 2:
25 tables of 8 people | 3 languages
Tables
Composition
Table 1
German / Lettonian / Romanian
Table 2
French or Dutch / Lithuanian / Romanian
Table 3
German / English or Maltese / Romanian
Table 4
French or Dutch / Estonian / Romanian
Table 5
German / Greek / Slovenian
Table 6
French / Greek / Dutch
Table 7
German / Greek / English or Irish
Table 8
French / English or Irish / Polish
Table 9
German / Dutch / Slovak
Table 10
French / Dutch / Slovak
Table 11
German / Finnish / Dutch
Table 12
Finnish / Polish / Spanish
Table 13
German / Danish / Italian
Table 14
Danish / Finnish / Italian
Table 15
German / Croatian / Spanish
Table 16
Bulgarian / French / Italian
Table 17
German / Bulgarian / Spanish
Table 18
Greek / Czech / Italian
Table 19
Czech / Polish / Spanish
Table 20
Hungarian / Italian / Polish
Table 21
Hungarian / Polish / Spanish
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
14 / 121
Table 22
French / Italian / Portuguese
Table 23
Italian / Portuguese / Spanish
Table 24
French / Italian / Swedish
Table 25
Polish / Spanish / Swedish
2.3 Launching event and/or kick-off meeting
2.3.1 Principle of a launching event
A launching event will be organised before the start of the deliberation process.
This launching event is above all a communication event to widely inform the European citizens about the
goals and the process of the CoFoE. It would take the form of a short event taking place in July or early
September 2021, with a sample of citizens (in case the recruitment is not completely achieved by then) or
even citizens from former participatory processes. This launching event can provide substantial support to
the overall process but it is not an essential component of the Panels’ process.
2.3.2 Features for a launching event
The launching event must be short and stimulating, closer to a TV show than an institutional speech in
terms of dynamism and interaction. It could articulate different kind of testimonies: interview of the Chairs
of the three institutions (or co-Chairs of the Executive Board), interview of different members of the
Plenary, interview of contributors or organisers of national/ local initiatives for the CoFoE, presentation of
the first results of the Platform, short discussions or debates on the stakes of the different topics, and of
course presentation of the goals and design of the Panels.
This event, recorded and streamed, is a strong support in the recruitment process (to embed citizens selected
by lot into a complex process and attest of the legitimacy of the process).
It can also serve as a repetition for the real start of the event, by making the technical test and ensuring the
coordination of all the actors.
2.3.3 Principle of a kick-off meeting
The kick-off meeting is the first gathering of the Panels.
It is an online event in September or early October,
organised with all 800 citizens participating in the Conference on the Future of Europe. It is a time dedicated
to the 800 Panelists, even if it is recorded and accessible to the wider public throughout the Multilingual
Digital Platform.
At the end of the kick-off meeting (3 to 6 hours long), the citizens will have a good understanding of the
general mandates, the different parts of the CoFoE process, the general logic of the Panels (timeline,
commitments, expected outputs), the overview of the topics of the four Panels (not in detail, but to
understand why these topics are crucial for the future of Europe).
Also, and most importantly, this event will serve the purpose to make citizens feel included, welcomed, and
eager to begin the core sessions on the topics.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
15 / 121
link to page 16 link to page 16
2.3.4 Features for a kick-off meeting
In order to have dynamic discussions and a common understanding of the size of the event, the kick-off
meeting will get an alternation between Plenary and breakout rooms (by mixing the Panels).
The discussions could focus on expectations: expectations of the Executive Board towards the Panels (why
we need the citizens’ voices on these topics for the future of Europe), the first expectations of the citizens
towards this deliberative process, expectations about the topics, concerns and hopes, etc.
2.4 Logic of the three core sessions of each Panel and key issues of methodology4
2.4.1 Principles
Onboarding: Participants and teams get ready for work (it
could be a social time in the evening the day of arrival)
A balance between Information and deliberation: Participants and teams
different time slots
discuss, interact, moderate, etc.
Wrap-up: Participants and teams sum up the session and go
home.
The Plenary slots are useful to share general information, to
give an intense pace to the session and to share the
Key principles Combination of Plenary production of all the subgroups. However, to ensure a high
for facilitation exchanges and subgroup
work
participation of each citizen most of time in a session will be
spent in small groups of 10 citizens with facilitators and with
the support of interpreters.
Priority to oral exchanges to ensure inclusion
Orality first
Citizens are the authors The citizens write it collectively, in their own words
of the final report
(translated to English, then translated into the languages).
Facilitators only support them.
Written inputs
During the first session: a short note on the topic, as a basic
Inputs5
course.
4 This section details the three core sessions of each Panel and the related methodological issues; details on the kick-
off and follow-up sessions are not included in this section.
5 More details on the outputs are available in the WP 3 report.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
16 / 121
link to page 17
At each session: a short synthesis based on the contributions
of the Platform (longer for the first session than the updates
for the following session)
Oral inputs
Hearings of experts and resource persons, to provide
balanced and various knowledge.
After each session, some citizens will produce a short report
based on their major impressions. It will be composed of
Ongoing
questions, key issues and surprises from the sessions. These
are the intermediate outputs, delivered at the end of each
session.
Outputs
At the end of the third session, each Panel will produce a set
Final
of policy recommendations. It is the final deliverable of the
Panel, written by the citizens, with the support of the
facilitation t
eam6.
2.4.2 Main features and options
A session lasts 2 to 3 days and can take place through different formats.
What is a face-to-face session?
● A face-to-face session is deployed in a physical place.
● Participants arrive on day 1 in the afternoon (get together and connect with others), work on day 2
and 3 and depart on day 4 morning, for a total of 3 days and 3 nights on-site.
● Members of the team arrive on day 1 morning, work on day 2 and 3 and depart on day 4 evening,
for a total of 4 days and 3 nights on-site.
6 More details on the outputs are available in the WP 4 report.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
17 / 121
What is a short online session (Kick-off and Follow-up)?
● For the kick-off and Follow-up, an online session is deployed through a video-conferencing tool
backed by a central studio.
● Participants join for 6 hours of online presence divided in 2 blocks: a top-down block and an
interactive block.
● They need 2 hours for onboarding.
● Members of the team need to connect half a day before for preparation matters. They need half a
day for debriefing.
What is a full online session (backup plan)?
● An online session is deployed through a video-conferencing tool backed by a central studio.
● Participants join for 12 hours of work divided in 4 or 6 blocks.
● They need 2 hours for onboarding.
● Members of the team need to connect half a day before for preparation. They need half a day of
debriefing.
What is a hybrid session?
● A hybrid session is a session in which some citizens attend physically to the session in a location
and some other citizens take part digitally, from home.
● We do not recommend this mixed-option, which creates asymmetry between citizens and many
logistical constraints.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
18 / 121
2.4.3 Panels’ inner logic for the three main sessions
We present here a scenario for the logic of a Panel. Of course, this logic will have to be finalized and made
more concrete until the start of the Panels.
We strongly recommend having 3 days of net deliberation for each session. If this is not possible, we
recommend to ensure intersessional work online.
Main purpose
Logic
Output
o Kick off of the Panel and group
building;
o Sharing the context and objectives of Vision
• Discover the
the CoFoE and of the Panel
topic
(“mandate”);
o Discover the topic of the Panel, with Agenda setting
the support of the information
on the topic
Session 1
• Agenda setting
material (kind of short basic course)
and exchanges with a first slot of
experts;
Needs of
hearings and
• Build visions for o Discover the inputs from the Platform
the future
(intermediate report of the topic on
information
the Platform);
o Draft a vision (or the controversies
visions, utopias and dystopias);
o Assess session and needs for next
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
19 / 121
sessions i.e agenda setting (hearings,
information, etc.);
o Random selection of “ambassadors”
to the Plenary
Intersession • Deepen vision
o Work on vision
Updated vision
o Onboarding;
o Feedback by the ambassadors about
the Plenary (Plenary);
o Exchanges with experts / resource
persons to understand the stakes of
the topics, and the role of the EU on
• Deepen
this topic (small groups, part in
Sketches for
Information
Plenary if general experts), new
inputs from Platform;
recommendations
Session 2
o Production by citizen of first ideas of
• Sketch first
recommendations, new inputs
Q&A for Plenary
recommendations
exchanges between Panels;
o Stress test of the first ideas of
recommendations between citizens;
o Collective assessment session and
needs for next session (hearings,
information, etc.);
o Random selection of “ambassadors”
to the Plenary
o Go from sketch to draft
Improved version
Intersession • Improve
of
recommendations
recommendations
o Onboarding;
o Updates from Plenary by the
“ambassadors”, last inputs form
Platform (Plenary);
• Finalize
o Drafting of final recommendations
Final set of
recommendations
(small groups);
recommendations
Session 3
o Last exchanges with experts,
stakeholders, decision makers, in
• Finalize report
order to improve final
Final report
recommendations;
o Finalization of the recommendations
and approval of the final report
(alternating small groups and
Plenary)
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
20 / 121
2.4.5 Risks and opportunities of online sessions
While face-to-face sessions should remain the core principle and logic of the process, we recommend to
consider the online work as part of the process in two major ways:
● Hold intersessional work to progress between the main sessions
● Have a fallback plan in case the pandemic situation does not improve enough to hold all main
sessions face-to-face.
We point below to key elements to consider for the success of online sessions:
Impact of online
Advantages
Drawbacks
Key for success
format
o Possible to meet in
o Higher entry cost
o Good preparation of
higher frequency
for participants (to
the various technical
use the tools, to be
tools for the
sure to have a good
implementer and the
On preparation
connection and right
participants
device)
(licenses, manuals,
technical support,
etc.)
o Intensive technical
training and support
o Multiple channels for o Intensity of the
o Divide a long session
discussion
face-to-face event is
in meeting of 2 to 3
contributions
weaker.
hours to avoid digital
(addition of chat,
o Interpersonal,
fatigue and loss of
anonymous chat)
informal, basic
attention
o Possibility to enhance
Human exchanges
o Alternate quickly
the discussion by the
are not possible
Plenary and breakout
use of digital tools
o Interpretation of
room
On
(e.g., rating, vote,
mimic and gesture
o Do not underestimate
implementation
word cloud, virtual
suffers from the
the staff needed for
phase / dialogue
post-its)
digital format.
facilitation and
phase
o These tools can be
o Digital Fatigue;
technical issues
used to enable
Inattention; loss of
o Create a “studio” for
exchange between
focus
a high quality of
the participants
o Accessibility is
event
during or in between
lower
sessions.
o More costs for
o Less costs for venue
technical setup and
and travel
preparation /
onboarding
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
21 / 121
o High rate of
o Lower diversity due o Identify the
participation
to onboarding cost
schedules relevant
(especially during the o Some participants
for most of the
lockdown) for some
are more at ease to
citizens and be open
categories of
contribute from
to the interruption of
participants
their home, but it
daily life into the
also can be difficult
session!
On participants
to stay highly
o Recreate informal
involved (children
exchanges and joyful
and relatives, daily
time
life)
o No informal time
and social time
which is the glue of
group dynamics
o All inputs can be
o The participants
easily streamed or
have no real
uploaded on
meeting with
platforms such as
observers and can
YouTube
feel as “guinea
On transparency o All results of the
pigs”.
agenda setting
o If the online format
process are online
is only
o Constant observation
videoconference,
through evaluation
the quality of
images is poor
o Less travel,
o Less Human
o Combinate online
conference facilities
experience
format and face to
Other
and less lodging
o Less quality
face format
means
o Less empathy
o Less Co2 emissions
o Less interaction
2.4.6 Intersessional activities
Principles
The members of each Panel will take part in intersessional activities. It is a complementary involvement to
the sessions. These intersessional activities aim at:
● Give more time to the Panels, in a lighter format;
● Enrich the citizens’ experience by other formats, less impressive than a Panel of 200 members;
● Solve a part of the written document translation issues.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
22 / 121
Specifications
WHY?
WHAT?
HOW?
WHEN?
To keep in touch
A virtual coffee break between
Voluntary
Each 2 weeks, a
citizens of a Panel (or citizens from
slot of 2 hours
a country)
To explore the
Free citizens enquiries, in their
Voluntary
Between the
topics
daily life and region (observation,
sessions
interview, free reading)
To inform on the
“Homework” with short documents Strongly
Between the
topics / to become
to read or audio to listen, in the
recommended
sessions
aware of the
language of participants
intermediate
production of the
Panel
To exchange
An online meeting of a half day
Compulsory if
Between session 2
between the Panels between the Panels (2 to 4 Panels,
this option is
and session 3
to identify common depending on the global pace of the confirmed
ground / common
Panels).
transversal
recommendations
To exchange with
An online meeting of 2 hours
Compulsory if
Between the
citizens of the same (maximum) in one language each.
this option is
sessions
country or
confirmed
language to cross
the ideas / opinions
between the Panel
2.5 Follow-up Session
2.5.1 Principle
An inter-Panel final feedback session will take place after the end of the whole deliberative process of the
citizens’ Panels.
The purpose is to symbolically close the work of the Panels by a final joint report, made by the participants
thanks to their common experiences. We propose that this event should combine decentralised events in
Member States (gathering for the first time participants from one country in one room) and online features
(to connect the national decentralised events).
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
23 / 121
2.5.2 Features and options for the follow-up session
This event will be decentralised and will take place in local European Commission’s offices in the 27
Member States. Nationals from the Member States that have been selected as members of the Panels will
be present in their respective countries. These decentralised events will happen simultaneously in all
member states and all European Commission’s offices will be connected in video-conference. An
alternative solution is a fully online event. The components of the follow-up session depend on the precise
expectation of the final deliverable, and will consist of (at least):
● Onboarding time / social time;
● Combination of Plenary and subgroups;
● Time dedicated to the collective production of core messages (including loops between the citizens
to improve them and approve them, with time to translate them into 24 languages);
● Festive time / closure ceremony.
The follow-up session will specifically focus on the production of core messages:
● Focus on the evaluation of the experience by the citizens: open discussion, reactions to evaluation
made by internal (and maybe external) evaluation;
● Focus on the use of the outputs of the four Panels: current use (especially in the final declaration
of the Plenary), and potential and foreseen use (by European institutions, by stakeholders, for the
European people);
● Focus on recommendations for future European Panels or future participatory approaches;
● Focus on dissemination of the recommendations of citizens: workshops with stakeholders.
2.6 Focus on interaction between the Panels
2.6.1 Principle
The Panels work separately, but in the same logic and with a similar design. The expectation is to have
similar structures for the outputs in order to have valuable and comparable results and ensure prompt follow-
up.
The relative autonomy of the Panels does not mean impervious silos. Some bridges must be built between
the Panels: by cross-meeting between the Panels and thanks to a heavy work of coordination to ensure a
common quality of the process of the Panels. However, Panels keep the same composition all along the
conference.
2.6.2 Interactions
The main interactions between the Panels take place during the kick-off meeting and the follow-up session:
these 2 online sessions are common to all Panels.
To complement this, we suggest to organise intersessional video-conferences between 2 or more Panels
(depending on the pace of the Panels), for a cross-Panels review of the recommendations to stress or to
improve them or to identify common values.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
24 / 121
link to page 25
2.6.3 Cross-Panel coordination
Following each Panel session, a 3-hour review meeting will be organised to share learnings, dos and don’ts,
along with Panels’ organisers (of all four Panels) and the designated reviewers of the session.
2.7 Use of the Digital Platform by the members of the Panels
2.7.1 Principle
The Multilingual Digital Platform is a central point for the CoFoE, acting as a bridge between participants
of the Panels and the wide public and serving to take into account the results and to share widely the inputs
and the outputs of the Panels, to organise interactions between Panels and the wider public (if this option is
confirmed). Accordingly, the use of the Platform by the Panelists will be encouraged between the sessions,
and if necessary during the sessions. In any case, the multilingualism of the Platform, and especially the
automatic translation of writing, will support the Panels’ process.
The Multilingual Digital Platform could provide different access modes:
● for all EU citizens;
● for Panelists;
● for facilitators;
● for experts;
● for researchers.
These different access modes will each be connected with different functionalities
7.
2.7.2 Overall goals of the Platform in the frame of the Panels
Visibility
● Public page allowing for a (public) presentation of the Panels, which will facilitate the recruitment
process and will provide visibility on the Panels’ activities (e.g., programmes, videos of the
sessions, short articles);
● Dissemination of some resources and insights on the Panels discussions and results to the wider
EU public;
Resources and interaction between Panelists
● Online space to share resources, information material, intermediate reports, as “memory” of the
works;
● Enable online space for interaction among Panels’ participants.
Link between mini-public and maxi-public of the CoFoE
● Integration of contents from the Platform into the Panels, based on regular short synthesis;
7 For more details on the different access modes and the related functionalities, please refer to annex 9.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
25 / 121
● Provide an interaction between Panels’ participants and the wider EU public, thus creating a sense
of proximity between the citizens and the participants and avoiding criticism on the selection of
participants.
2.7.3 Different spaces for differents paths
The Panelists’ journey of the Digital Platform could relate to three different paths, depending on the public
or private visibility of the online space and the management of contents.
Private/internal space (among
Public space
Public space administered
Panelists)
administered by Panels’
by Panelists
facilitators
Panelists can access a dedicated area The facilitation Team will Panelists can access the
on the Platform (secure access)
collect some main
Platform as any EU citizen,
giving them access to:
insights that the Panelists and publish ideas, interact on
●
for each Panel
wish to disseminate to the the Platform through its main
- Private chat room for their
wider EU community:
functionalities.
Panel;
- Question(s) for pan-
Options:
- resources and information of the
European polling
- Panelists are ‘unflagged’:
Panel (put by the facilitation
coming from
they appear as random
team): programme, practical
Panelists;
citizens;
details, links to
- Question(s) to the
- Panelists are ‘flagged’:
videoconference, information
governance
upon identification (login),
documents, pictures, etc.
committee of the
their profile is flagged and
- Possibility of voting, ranking,
CoFoE.
through their interaction
co-writing text..
they can be on the
●
Cross-Panel space
spotlight allowing other
- Private global chat room (all
EU citizens to identify
Panels);
them as their
- shared information material.
‘ambassadors’.
- A forum where all participants
are present and where they can
make proposal to all, with the
possibility for other to
upvote/downvote and to make
comments
2.7.4 Focus on the inputs from the Platform to the Panels
It is currently undecided what kind and what amount of input from the Platform can be delivered to the
Panel members. It is equally undecided when in the Panel process it should be provided.
From the Consortium’s point of view, input to the Panels from the Platform should be restricted to issues
that fall within the subject(s) for discussion by a given Panel. Such inputs should be delivered for Sessions
1 and 2 only:
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
26 / 121
link to page 27
● For Session 1: a 5 pages (max.) overview of inputs to the Platform, will focus on the kind of issues
raised and the recommendations given, with an equal focus on who has provided the input (citizens,
industry, NGO, etc..). The overview should be edited by a science journalist, translated and sent to
Panel members before Session 1.
● For Session 2: a 2-3 pages overview of issues raised and recommendations given, which fall within
the scope of the 5 subtopics chosen by the Panel members. The overview should be edited by a
science journalist, translated and sent to Panel members before Session 2.
2.8 Focus interaction between Panels and Plenary
The past experiences of interaction between citizens Panels and decision makers have proven to be more
fruitful when they enter into interactions following an iterative process. Citizens Panels can not be limited
to a “silo”, whose results are just presented to the decision makers. Interactions between citizens and
decision makers (in this case Plenary members) will increase the added value, as it will allow to clarify the
propositions, and to organise a good “transfer” from the citizens to the decision makers and vice-versa. This
requires creating opportunities for those interactions.
Concretely we propose that for each session 5 to 8 citizens of each Panel will be randomly selected to attend
the Plenary: they will be trained to present “intermediate” output to the Plenary and they will make a
feedback at the beginning of the following session to other citizens
8.
8 For more details: see annex 8.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
27 / 121
3. Recruitment, participant’s Secretariat and long-term citizens’ commitment
3.1 Principles
The recruitment strategy is divided in three stages where three actors are involved and during which a good
coordination will be needed, to ensure the participants a smooth entry into the deliberation stage. The
management of the participants and their well-being will be a key element of how the citizens lived and felt
the event. A mishandled recruitment and management of citizens could have a disastrous impact on the
deliberation and on the outreach of the Conference.
The three stages are:
● Framing of the recruitment and of the secretariat, before the recruitment campaign starts;
● The recruitment process itself, until the citizens are selected;
● Follow up of the citizens, once the participants are selected and once the first Panel starts.
The three actors are:
● The Panel’s organiser is in charge of supervising and coordinating the framing the design in
collaboration with Consortium partners;
● Kantar is in charge of the recruitment process as recruitment organisation;
● The Secretariat is in charge of the follow-up of the citizens.
3.2 Framing of the recruitment
3.2.1 General principles
To achieve inclusion and transparency for the citizens, the key points of a successful recruitment will be
anticipation (of the steps, of the needs) and clarity (information, rules, practical requirements). The framing
must be determined before launching the recruitment, allowing Kantar to adapt and prepare its strategy.
3.2.2 Deadlines, modalities and delays for recruitment
For the recruitment process, the delay to gather all citizens is estimated to be 2 months. The dates of the
Panels should be fixed in advance to ensure the recruitment’s organization can lead a valuable recruitment
campaign.
The question of the attrition will also have an impact on the deadlines and the modalities: if the recruitment’s
organisation needs to replace participants between Panels, they need to be aware of the deadlines.
3.2.3 Replacement and attrition
In order to ensure citizens’ participation along the whole process and to make sure that the deliberation is
and remains representative and valid, it is needed to develop means to avoid attrition before the process
starts.
Replacement represents a risk for the deliberative process as it could create different levels of knowledge,
understanding and involvement between the newcomers and the original participants. A maximum rate of
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
28 / 121
attrition could be a signal for the organizers and will help to anticipate some decisions. Four positions are
possible in the event of massive attrition:
● Option 1: There is no complementary recruitment foreseen, we accept the defection and we support
at best less involved and less committed participants.
● Option 2: A new round of recruitment is set, targeting 10% of each Panels following the same
diversity.
● Option 3: During the first round of recruitment, a global “reserve” of 200 people is foreseen (like
an additional -ghost- Panel).
● Option 4: During the first round of recruitment, a bigger sample of participants (10% of each Panel)
is made, taking into account that the sample will decrease along the sessions.
Missions Publiques and the Consortium, thanks to their experience in deliberative processes, strongly
recommend not to integrate participants after the second session to avoid attrition and defection.
In case replacement is proceeded, some catch-up mechanisms must be developed to ensure there is no gap
between the newcomers and the original participants:
● Replacement procedure is easy to set and flexible
● Short recap-session with moderators
● Documents with minutes from the previous sessions should be provided and translated
● Put the newcomer in touch with a fellow attending since the first session
3.2.4 Compensation
A fair compensation is necessary to ensure diversity, inclusion and motivate citizens to participate in the
long term. In order to establish the recruitment criteria and launch the process, an eventuality is to propose
to index compensation based on European juries (see annex 4). A choice must be made between having a
common compensation for all the participants or if the compensation differs depending on where
participants come from.
Compensation must take into account: the loss of daywork, the transportation, the meals and the stay costs.
It can take the form of a unique sum or a rate per category.
Compensation could be made before the session, after the session or at the end of the whole process (or in
mid-term). This last option could be used as an incentive for participants.
Compensation management will be settled by the Secretariat.
To be able to confirm their involvement, citizens must know: the dates of the sessions, the location, the fees
and compensation. To know clearly the use of the results, the commitment of the CoFoE towards the Panels
and the topics of each Panel will be a huge support.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
29 / 121
3.2.5 Next steps
Task
Contributor(s)
Dissemination
Deadline / Minimum
time required
Create the compensation protocol General secretariat
General
Depends on when
secretariat
participants are getting
compensated
Get the timeline of the whole
Consortium + EB
All
Before sending the
process
invitation later and as
soon as possible
Get the replacement protocol
Consortium + EB
Kantar
1 month before first
session, in order to let
Kantar adapt its strategy
3.3 Recruitment strategy, to select the participants
3.3.1 General Principles
The recruitment is a key element of the quality and legitimacy of the Panels. This is why it needs particular
care and must be sustained by robust scrutiny.
The objective is to constitute 4 Panels of 200 citizens each, with a third of citizens under 25 years old. This
overrepresentation of youth and the number of citizens of each country will need a public justification.
To select participants, we suggest a sortition aspiring to provide equal chances in the best possible way
(given practical constraints) by civic lottery of citizens. This is, however, an ideal approach, that the Design
of the Panels will aim at, without the guarantee to achieve this goal.
The sortition has a high democratic value: it gives an equal chance to each citizen of the European Union
to take part in the Panels, regardless their level of education, of revenue, and their opinion about Europe.
In order to launch the recruitment process and to succeed to achieve a qualitative deliberative process, it is
needed to refer to the core values of the
Joint Declaration. Inclusion, Transparency and Openness lead to
the elaboration of several criteria that must be taken into consideration for the
sortition of participants.
Once citizens corresponding to the quota have given their approval, we advise to randomly select the topics
that will be affected, in order not to break diversity and inclusion.
To analyse and build a profile of refusers, the idea of making a specific analysis of refusals can be discussed.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
30 / 121
3.3.2 Defining the criteria of ideal composition of Panels
The following criteria are key elements for a random selection which is representative of the EU
sociological diversity
Following the European Parliament’s distribution
Random selection is based on the proportion of distribution of EU seats at
the EU Parliament.
PROPORTIONAL
This scenario gives more chances to inhabitants from smaller countries that
REPRESENTATION may be less powerful than bigger countries.
On the other side this distribution is based on the logic of Nation states which
is not automatically the logic of citizens living in the countries.
Extension of youth representation
33%: proportion of youth (16-25 years old) leading to an over-representation
of youth into the Panels
This gives the opportunity to Youth to have a stronger voice in the
discussion. This is important because there is a structural disadvantage of
Youth in the decision-making structure that makes it crucial to balance in a
AGE
deliberative exercise. They also have a stronger stake at the Future as they
will bear the consequences of decisions longer.
On the other side, overrepresenting youth is breaching inclusion and equality
of chances. Why would youth people be more legitimate to speak than elderly
people that have a wealth of experience? Why wouldn’t we then
overrepresent all other structurally underrepresented groups of citizens:
Women, minorities, disabled persons, etc.?
From the European Institute for Gender Equality: “
Gender refers to the
social attributes and opportunities associated with being male and female
and the relationships between women and men and girls and boys, as well as
the relations between women and those between men. These attributes,
opportunities and relationships are socially constructed and are learned
GENDER
through socialization processes. They are context/ time-specific and
changeable. Gender determines what is expected, allowed and valued in a
woman or a man in a given context. In most societies there are differences
and inequalities between women and men in responsibilities assigned,
activities undertaken, access to and control over resources, as well as
decision-making opportunities. Gender is part of the broader socio-cultural
context.”
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
31 / 121
The level of income, for example, is a socio-economic criterion that is very
SOCIO-ECONOMIC important and has a high weight in the other interconnected criteria.
BACKGROUND
In the European Union, approximately 74% of the population lives in Urban
RURAL / URBAN
areas (World Bank Data 2019). Sortition must be elaborated taking into
BACKGROUND
account this criterion to make sure that the rural inhabitants of the EU are not
under-represented in the process.
CITIZENSHIP
The inclusion of Non-EU Citizens living in the EU is also an approach that
needs to be integrated to the recruitment of participants.
Beyond core demographic criteria, it is important to secure a diverse group
of citizens in terms of attitudes. To achieve this, it will be critical to include
ATTITUDINAL
a set of questions on attitudes. These questions could be based on the
CRITERIA
Eurobarometer questions on trust in institutions, cores values, etc. (see for
example
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/eb/eb69/eb69
_values_en.pdf )
3.3.3 Preparing sortition
Based on the set of criteria, the organization in charge of recruitment will be able to choose an adapted
methodology of sortition depending on the country.
We list here different methods that have been used in the past.
●
France’s Citizen Convention on Climate: Automatic generation of 300.000 phone numbers then
calls and stratification of the Panels a posteriori following 5 criterias (gender, level of education,
type of jobs, geographical area, rural or urban)
●
Madrid City Council: civic lottery used to select 30.000 addresses from the register of
inhabitants (“padrón”) and stratification a posteriori using 3 criterias (gender, age,
neighborhood). Also used in the UK, Poland, Canada and Australia.
●
Germany: Picking districts to represent diversity of districts (rural/urban;
North/South/East/West; etc.), have sortition on criteria on the Melderegister (Register of
Inhabitants).
3.3.4 Gathering all the documents and information needed for recruitment
● Information to give to selected people: Goals and overview of the Panels in the context of the
CoFoE, dates and location of the Panels, compensation and fees.
● Documents to involve citizens:
○ A mandate letter to inform citizens on the purpose of the Conference and what is expected
from them based on the Joint Declaration and signed by the Co-Chairs
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
32 / 121
○ A charter / convention
○ FAQ/frequently asked questions: logistics and practicalities, contacts in their own
language, etc.
● A hotline (by mail and/or by phone) set up by the secretariat so that citizens can have direct contact
and ask questions they have on the process
Minor participants
In each Panel, it is estimated that 13 participants will be adolescent minors (aged 16-17).
They will have to receive their parents’ authorization including for travelling and the agreement on the
Panels rules and framework, while they will also require dedicated assistance during the sessions, as well
as during spare moments.
We intend to call an organisation in each host country, with the legal authorisation to act with teenagers.
The language question will have to be addressed depending on the language skills of the participants. They
will be contacted before the first session, by one facilitator from their country.
Participants with special needs
In each Panel, it is estimated that some participants will have special needs ranging from mobility and
accessibility issues up to food regime.
This will have an impact in terms of budget (need to find a special room accessible, special food, etc.).
3.3.5 The recruitment
In order to prepare the selection a first step is to identify the database and do a first sortition of items of that
database (by numbers of phones or addresses)
After that, two options are available:
● For those selected in the sortition (e)mailing or official letter or phone calls for people showing
interest or for people whose profiles are needed for the quota.
● With all positive contacts (that have accepted to participate) do a demographic stratification (ideally
with a second sortition process) to fit proportions required. That will create the final list of
participants.
Once the participants are selected, it is of importance to set up assistance’s team for participants and second
confirmation with all of them via phone.
Finally, a confirmation and engagement by official letter will be sent to the participants (only if an official
letter has not been sent in step 2), together with the information booklet and/or the goodies (which may be
given on the first onsite session).
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
33 / 121
At any of these steps, it will be essential to have good communication with the wider public, so that they
understand the legitimacy of the process and the choice of going through sortition. For more details, please
refer to work package 5 on Impact and work package 6 on outreach.
3.3.6 Next steps
Task
Contributor(s)
Dissemination
Deadline /
Minimum time
required
Launch of the recruitment process and Kantar + Consortium
Secretariat of the 2 month before the
follow up
Executive Board first session and/or
one month before
the kick-off
session
Prepare an official invitation letter
Executive Board
1 month before the
first session
Prepare the Mandate Letter, the FAQ Consortium + executive
2 weeks before the
and the citizen’s charter
Board
first session
3.4 Contract, accompaniment and welcome package
3.4.1 General principles
The main goal of this task is to ensure the long-term involvement of the participants, once they are part of
the process. We ask the participants an effort which is strong and quite long (about 6 months). The
accompaniment is necessary to help them to feel welcomed and to make the logistical questions as light
and easier as possible.
This long-term involvement will be ensured if the participants live and feel a nice and amazing experience.
We must show them that participating in a European Panel is a unique experience and will bring them
feelings and memories they cannot live outside deliberation processes. Social time, side events in the
location of the Panels will contribute to make it a wonderful civic experience for citizens.
We must adopt a participants-friendly approach, showing them we are at their service. Any documents and
accompaniments are above all focus citizen designed. The language will be easy, lively, and inspiring, not
too formal or institutional.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
34 / 121
link to page 35 link to page 35 link to page 35
3.4.2 First steps in the conference: charter, welcome package and booklets
Once involved, all selected participants will receive a participant’s charter and sign a contract describing
the project, their rights, their obligations
9.The contract could be signed before the first session or at the first
session (with all the group or individually).
When reaching Panels’ location, all citizens will receive a welcome package containing:
● European bags
10.
● One information booklet under the form of “journey log” that they receive one time at the first
session and that they are invited to bring at each session
11.
● A session booklet before each session with the framing of the topic (updated with the requests from
the participants) , the objectives of the sessions, the recap of the last session and white pages for
note taking.
3.4.3 Accompaniment
The General Secretariat of the Conference on the Future of Europe will be in charge of the accompaniment
of participants after the recruitment process. They will take the lead for the management of the participants
after receiving all the information from the recruitment company. The Secretariat’s team will welcome
citizens and accompany them before, through and after the deliberative process with digital, logistical,
special and personal support to make sure that the facilitation team can contribute to citizen’s participation
in optimal conditions. We imagine the secretariat as a two layers entity, with one general secretariat which
is the first contact for participants and the relay between them, and secondly the different supporting teams,
speaking both the 24 languages of the European Union. The idea is to have a unique entry-point for citizens
so that they don’t have to get in touch with too many different people. The structure could be the following:
General secretariat
Lead Facilitator
Before the session
After the session
During the session
Provide administrative, logistical and digital support to
Members of the Panels
Observers from the Plenary (with an option for other observers)
9 See Annex 16.
10 See Annex 17.
11 See Annex 17
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
35 / 121
CoFoE Secretariat team
Facilitation and evaluation team
Research team (independent researchers)
Interpretation team
Media
Experts and speakers
Technical team
People in charge of output production (filmmakers, photographers, painters, and other creative artists)
Functions are detailed here:
● General secretariat
○ First entry point for citizens, with one contact email-address/number by country.
Communication could be done by mail or WhatsApp for fast information
○ Holding all the data/information from the citizens and ask their personal needs
○ In charge of the compensation
○ 1 to 3 referents (depending on the size of the country)
○ This secretariat will also support the following groups who will take part to the Panels:
■ Observers from the Plenary (with an option for other observers)
■ CoFoE Secretariat team
■ Facilitation and evaluation team
■ Research team (independent researchers)
■ Interpretation team
■ Media
■ Experts and speakers
■ Technical team
■ people in charge of output production (filmmakers, photographers, painters, and
other creative artists)
● Digital support:
○ For connection and access to online tools
■ Training before the event
■ Assistance to connect to the first online Panel
■ Assistance during the deliberation + hotline to discuss anything related to
technical, logistical issues or the process
■ Production of a guide to help them (how to use online video conference tool,
where to find information material, reports and synthesis of the Panel meetings
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
36 / 121
○ Equipment to provide (to budgetize) and to send to participants
○ Training and assistance made by moderators
○ 1 to 5 national referents (depending on the size of the country) + 1 coordinator
● Logistical support:
○ For booking travel and stay (only administrative tasks)
○ 1 to 5 decentralized national referents (depending the side of the country) + 1 coordinator
+ 1 national referents on the place of the deliberation
● Special and personal support: on case-by-case basis
○ Vulnerable people: people with disabilities, disadvantaged people, elderly people;
○ For translation, for personal assistance translation, printing service;
○ 1 to 3 on-the-ground national referents and 1 to 3 in the country of origins (depending on
the needs)
The participants’ secretariat will communicate in only 4 to 5 languages, with the support of identified
facilitators and/or trainees in order to cover the 24 languages. The amount of support expected from the
facilitators and the workflow between them and the secretariat is still to assess.
3.4.4 Next steps
Task
Contributor(s)
Dissemination Deadline / Minimum time
required
Setup of participants' secretariat Consortium
General
2 month before the session, at
secretariat
the same moment as the
launching of the recruitment
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
37 / 121
4. Team and Facilitation team
4.1 Overview of staffing
Role
Role and responsibilities
Number needed and time effort
Coordination
Coordinate the interpanel work, ensure
quality of whole process
3 persons full time equivalent
Main
Moderate the Plenary sessions of the 3 per Panel, From MP, DBT, IFOK,
Moderators
Panels, master of time.
Deliberativa
One facilitator for 10 citizens (3 to 6 20 + 8 per Panel: For each group of 10 plus
Facilitators
languages per group)
8 as reserve and “flying team”
Practitioners from EU countries, 3 days before each session, 2 days sessions,
trained by organisation team
3 days after all sessions to make the
synthesis
Option A: If 3 languages are spoken per
subgroup, 2 to 3 interpreters per group For 200 citizens and tables of 8 or 10 (See
are needed at one point in time.
annex 3). Per Panel:
Option B: If 4 languages are spoken, 3
- Option 1: 40 to 60 interpreters at
to 4 interpreters per group are needed
one point in time (so 80 to 120 in
at one point in time.
total)
Interpretation
Professional interpreters.
- Option 2: 60 to 80 interpreters at
one point in time (so 120 to 160 in
For each table, interpreters work as a
total)
team (so the real number of persons is
double the number of interpreters at
- 8 to 10 interpreters outside the
one point in time as they switch every
groups are required (meals, off
30 minutes).
moments).
8 people that will advise participants
Advisory Group and Panel organisers on the kind of
knowledge to be provided, who can 4 Coordinators, 4 other members per Panel
help deliver it, and in what shape
exactly
A fact-checker team will be present in
Fact-Checkers
each Panel to answer questions from 3 to 5 people per Panel
participants and bring the necessary
information to the participants
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
38 / 121
Secretariat
Secretariat for participants
1 focal point per country, hence 27 persons
per Panel
Logistics and
Event management / organisation
technics
management
10 persons per Panel
3 persons from Panels’ organising team plus
Public relation
staff from DG Comm and Comm from EP
and
Public relations
and Council
Communication
1 movie team for two Panels
Management of observers (media,
researchers, etc.)
1 coordinator to manage interface with
Research and
researchers
observers
Researchers and observers are
coordinated by the facilitation team 120 Researchers, 30 per Panel
(for more details, please see WP7)
4.2 Interpreters
4.2.1 General principles
Translation will happen simultaneously thanks to live interpreters, both during the Plenary and during the
subgroups.
Participants are gathered in Plenary (interpretation in 24 languages) or in subgroups (ideally subgroups of
10 people), in which 3 or 4 languages are spoken — including a language among the following ones: French,
German, English, Italian, Spanish — which requires the accompaniment of each group by 3 interpreters
sharing the relay language.
For each table, interpreters work as a team (so the real number of persons is double the number of
interpreters at one point in time as they switch every 30 minutes).
4.2.2 Recruiting of interpreters
If sessions are happening inside EU institutions, institutional translation teams might be mobilized
If sessions are happening fully online, there is a need to provide a Platform to translate into 24 languages
(eventually through zoom canal).
Recruitment needs to happen ideally 2 months previous to the sessions (and at least 1 month before) in order
to prepare interpretation teams to the modality of the event.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
39 / 121
4.2.3 Guidelines for interpretation and multilingual working structures
Each citizen is expected to speak in its own language and be heard by all other citizens in their respective
languages.
If sessions happen onsite, interpretation is live streamed via microphone and audio system for each
participant.
During small groups sessions, animators will divide participants in groups of up to 25 citizens speaking a
maximum of 3 languages.
4.2.4 Preparation of briefings for interpretation teams
Previous to the sessions, briefing meetings will be organized to prepare interpretation teams. Two (2)
leading animators will remain outside small groups sessions to supervise the whole group of participants
and lead discussions on the steering committee.
4.3 Facilitation team
4.3.1 General principles
The facilitation teams are here to make sure the citizen feels welcomed, free to speak and to make the Panels
a fluid organization. In order to be efficient and to coordinate effectively, all staff needs to be large but
functioning as a unique team. This is the reason why the Facilitation’s Charter (see annex 11) gathers all
facilitation staff around common rules and guidelines, always with respect to the core values of the
Conference on the Future of Europe: Inclusion, Transparency and Openness.
The facilitation team is made up of facilitators from EU countries (objective: each language is spoken by at
least one facilitator). Facilitators will take charge of liaising with citizens during intersessional time (except
on logistical aspects), in particular to ensure the relationship in the 24 languages.
We do not recommend switching to larger groups, 15 people per group means significantly lowering each
person's speaking time:
● It is considered that in such a group, 20% of the time is non-productive time because busy with
translations, 100 minutes becomes 80 minutes useful.
● If 10 people share this time, it's 8 minutes per person.
● If 15 people share it, that's 5.3 minutes, or 34% less speaking time.
● One option is to have subgroups of 8 people: this solution improves the speaking time and the
quality of discussion, but increases the team: 25 groups require 25 facilitators (+ 5) and about + 15
to 20 interpreters
Additionally, we estimate the need to facilitate the inter-sessional time of each session (mails to the citizens,
encouragement and help to use the Platform) to 30 days per Panel (for the duration of the Panels).
There will be approximately 28 facilitators per Panel, with a workload of 8 days per session:
● One day for distance training, to the particular protocol of the session and knowledge of the issues
per session,
● One day before for a general training on facilitation and CoFoE stakes,
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
40 / 121
link to page 41 link to page 41
● The day of arrival,
● Two days of facilitation,
● Three days after to debrief and produce the report
4.3.2 The different roles and responsibilities in the moderation team
During a deliberative process, there are multiple actors:
The main moderators (3 per Panel): he/she is the contact point of the sessions and ensures the good work of
the dialogue by managing his/her team of facilitators (including their training. His/her role is also to be the
interface with the evaluation team, the media and the “embedded” researchers. He/she is also in charge of
the organisation question and the timekeeper. He will also be guiding through the Plenary sessions
(especially the Panels’ representatives). During the intersession, the main facilitators will organise the work
of the facilitators and the feedbacks and produce the detailed roll-out of the session. The main facilitators
will also be in charge of leading the knowledge management and validating the synthesis to be shared with
the participants, the CoFoE Plenary and the public at large.
The facilitation team (20+8 per Panel): moderators are there to facilitate the dialogue and ensure that all
participants are feeling well and have the opportunity to talk and to be heard. Each subgroup is led by a
facilitator, who takes notes and produces a synthesis of his subgroup each evening in a shared document
(e.g., Google Drive folder), in English. Each facilitator is trained ahead of the session. Some of the
facilitation team could have the role of notetakers: they assist the group by taking notes of the discussions,
letting the moderator only focus on the moderation and the good flow of conversations. He/she is also in
charge of the chat in online dialogues. A WhatsApp thread brings together all facilitators during the
sessions.
The technical staff (could be considered as part of secretariat or part of the facilitation team )
● In offline dialogues, he/she is in charge of the good working of the materials such as screen,
headphones, audio. It is also the persons on site who can help you if you’re looking for a room or
you have a question on the site
● In online dialogues, a dedicated team is in charge of the technical problems occurring on Visio-
Platform, to support participants who face difficulties to connect, to mute/unmute, to activate
cameras and so on. A hotline may be good to ensure the good work of the techs.
Evaluation team: the evaluation team is composed of internal and external stakeholders that are trained the
weeks before the process, jointly with facilitators
12.
4.3.3 The training of facilitators13
Facilitation is a key to ensure inclusion, deliberation, and quality of the output. To achieve it, the facilitation
team must be trained, coordinated, agile, and reflexive.
12 See more details in the deliverable of WP7.
13 Also followed by the evaluation team.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
41 / 121
In order to do that, main moderators (between them) and moderators (trained by the main moderators) will
follow a training session before the Panels start and obey to guiding rules. A guide for facilitation will be
provided to them (see in annex 11).
Training consists of:
● Some facilitation briefings by zoom to help facilitators to appropriate themselves the guide of
facilitation:
● A MOOC: some videos to share the principles of moderation. The MOOC is especially useful if
the sessions are simultaneous: We cannot train all the facilitators at the same time.
● A training session/ a pilot: make the facilitators « play » the first session (3 to 6 hours)
4.3.4 Guiding rules for facilitators
The facilitators will have to sign a charter, where they accept to work under those 6 principles.
● Neutrality on the topics and equivalence of treatment of all the people (citizen, experts,
stakeholders)
● Capacity to listen
● Awareness (of their potential authority on groups, of cognitive bias, etc.)
● Clarity
● Inclusiveness
● Politeness
4.4 Coordination team
A team will be dedicated to keep the integrity of the process and the coherence between the Panels, the
interface Panels – Plenary, the follow up of the evaluation, and the decisions to improve the process (within
a session when necessary, between the sessions, and make sure each Panel benefit from the experience of
the others). Also, this team will take charge of the organisation of workshops between the sessions including
evaluators and main facilitators, the coordination with the knowledge management, the interaction with the
CoFoE secretariat.
This process will mobilize 3 persons at full time equivalent.
4.5 Communication team (internal)
4.5.1 Communication between the staff of one Panel
● Have a loop of discussion by mail and by Telegram
● Have a drive to share documents or a special space on the Platform
● Have common preparation meeting: one per week during the 3 weeks before each session
● Have short meeting to debrief at the end of each session
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
42 / 121
4.5.2 Communication between all facilitators of the Panels (creating a community)
Have briefings inter-Panels:
● Before the first Panel
● In the middle of a Panel (or more Panels if simultaneous)
● At the end of a Panel (capitalization / assessment for the next one on facilitation, language and
logistics issues)
4.6 Next steps
Task
Contributor(s)
Dissemination
Deadline /
Minimum time
required
Production / dissemination of
Consortium
facilitators
Once facilitators
facilitation Charter
are recruited
Setup of Facilitation team (following Consortium
Secretariat of the 2 months before
guidelines design phase I)
Executive Board first session
Create and schedule training session Consortium
Facilitators
1 month before the
for facilitators and evaluators
first session
Identification of staff, according to the Consortium
All staff
1 month before the
staffing roles distribution previously
first session
established (incl. interpretation,
technical assistance, etc.)
Consortium
facilitators
During the
Production / dissemination of
training of
Facilitation guidelines
facilitators
Dissemination of communication
Consortium
Secretariat of the 1 month before the
framework
Executive Board first session
Consortium
Secretariat of the 2-3 months before
Recruitment of interpreters
Executive Board the first session
Production of guidelines for
Consortium
interpreters
2 months before
interpretation and multilingual
the first session
working structures
Consortium
interpreters
1 month before the
first session and
just before first
Briefing of interpretation team
session
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
43 / 121
5. Organizational and technical matters & general guidelines
5.1 General principles
Most of the time, the Panels will take place in real life: if the kick-off meeting and the feedback session are
designed to be held on-line, the favorite scenario is the on-site deployment of the working sessions. This
on-site scenario will be filled with short on-line intersession activities. However, if the sanitarian context
does not allow us to gather people from all the European countries, online sessions will be implemented.
The organizational and technical matters for these 2 scenarios are developed in this part.
5.2 For on-site sessions
5.2.1 Location
Options
Advantages
Disadvantages
All in Brussels
● Easier for logistics in one place
● “Brussels bubble”.
● We know the places (contact, ● Too linked to institutions
security, interpretation,
transports…)
● No cost for transport
People will feel more at ease
because they get used to the place
● Closer contact and possible
involvement from EU
institutions
● Multilingual city
All in Brussels and
● Symbolic
● EU institution bubble
Strasbourg
● We know the places
● Too West Europa centric
● Closer contact and possible ● Considered as a request from
involvement from EU President Macron
institutions
● Easier for media and impact
A mix of EU capitals
● Deployment in Europe, nearer to ● More logistics
and Member States’
the citizens, possibility to engage ● Participants can get lost between
capitals (e.g.: launch
MS and local authorities,
the sessions
in Brussels or
synergy, better common ground ● Capacity of venues and
Strasbourg for all
building, citizens can be host of
allocation of venues
Panels and then 15
other participants,
● Decentralized teams
EU capitals (3x5))
● Possibility of different scale
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
44 / 121
link to page 45
Thematic capitals
● Deployment in Europe, nearer to ● More logistics
(e.g., Capitals of
the citizens,
● Participants can get lost between
Culture; Green
● possibility to engage MS and
the sessions
Capitals; Youth
local authorities,
● Capacity of venues and
Capital; capitals of
● synergy, better common ground
allocation of venues
democracy; EU
building,
● Decentralized teams
capital of smart
● citizens can be host of other
tourism…)
participants,
5.2.2 Infrastructure
SPACE 1
Option n°1 - One room in which all discussions happen: Shared space, adaptable with
specific furniture and architectural elements in order to fulfil the functions of Plenary
room as well as group sessions’ room. Participants would be around tables of 10
including one facilitator but not interpretation (for some session interpretation would be
given by interpreters at the tabl
e14.
→ For 200 citizens per Panel: full room capacity is up to 250
Option n°2 - One room for the Plenary with separate tables:
○ One Plenary room: 20 presenters and 20 other people (external)
→ For 200 citizens per Panel: full room capacity is up to 250
○ Additional spaces (for subgroup discussions): smaller rooms, with 2 to
3 presenters and 20 other people (external)
→ For 200 citizens per Panel:
- Groups of 10: 20 rooms with capacity up to 25 people
SPACE 2
One room fitting all people present seated for break and restauration (between 250 and
300)
SPACE 3
One room for technical and administration teams (50 to 70 people)
SPACE 4
Outside desks: partly covered (if possible)
(OUTDOOR)
SPACE 5
Information room
14 Option 1: 3 languages per table | option 2: 4 languages per table (see above under “Interpretation”).
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
45 / 121
SPACE 6
Dedicated spaces for advertising material related to the event
Services
● Outside Desks:
○ Several outside of the room desks to inform / welcome / indicate participants and
externals during and between sessions
○ Each desk needs electric and internet connection
○ Each desk is equipped with a computer and place strategically close to entrances and
exits of the rooms / venue
● Information room:
○ There should be a room where participants can meet persons with documents,
explanations on the topic and on Europe
● Catering:
○ Cold and / or hot drinks available close by Spaces 1 and 2 all day
○ Buffet and coffee breaks organized in Space 2 between sessions
○ Relaxation areas accessible and provided with hot and / or cold drinks
○ Restauration area (integrated to Spaces 2 or 4) provided with self-service buffet - hot and
cold drinks - small meals
● Advertising:
○ Existing digital material should be used previous to and during the event to promote it
○ Dedicated spaces attributed to visual and paper document promoting event (before and
during)
● To take in account:
○ Access for people with disabilities
○ Have more space for Covid 19 protocol
● Bonus:
○ Access to outside places/garden
○ Near participant’s hotel
Technical set-up and digital needs for onsite sessions
● Microphone and audio system
○ For 200 citizens per Panel: Approximately 250 equipment
○ There should be a possibility for having a system where each headphone can have
different channels with a visual signal (light with different color) showing for instance
the language spoken with the color,
● Video Projector(s) for Space 1
● Connectivity materials for each space
● Internet Connection to interact with online Platform (one per group)
● Space for observers
● Space for cameras (if sessions are live streamed)
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
46 / 121
● Space for interpretation
● Easy/fast access to toilets
● Natural light is better
● Windows that can open
In any option, logistical aspects must consider accessibility for disabled people as well as social distancing
and sanitary protocol due to Covid-19.
It would be better to have all these rooms and spaces gathered in one limited location, in order to avoid loss
of time during travers between places and to avoid confusing participants.
Color path (colored line on the ground that you can follow and that leads to the place you are looking for,
one color meaning one place) can be imagined on the ground to indicate the different rooms to the
participants and staff.
5.2.3 Next steps
Task
Contributor(s)
Dissemination Deadline / Minimum
time required
Technical setup according to what has Consortium
Secretariat of the
2 weeks before the
been planned in design phase I
Executive Board
first session
5.3 For fully online sessions and for online intersessional activities
5.3.1 Principle
The online Platform needs to be adapted to support fully online sessions. The digital equipment has to be
qualitative and be accessible for every citizen, in every country and in every language.
The presentation will be in English with live written translation for the whole assembly. For group sessions,
the Plenary will be divided into subgroups of 10 with translation into 3 to 6 languages for each group.
For an optimal user experience for all Panelists and moderators, it is necessary to have a user-friendly
Platform in the 24 languages spoken by the citizens.
Everyone needs to be appropriately equipped in order to be able to participate in full capacity in the online
sessions.
These equipments need to be accessible in every country and should not request too much internet.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
47 / 121
5.3.2 Features of the Platform used for online sessions
Mandatory elements
● Breakout rooms
○ Possibility for participants to choose a breakout room
○ Possibility to name the rooms
○ Possibility to go back to Plenary/to move from one breakout room to the other
● Chat interaction
● Different statute among attendees (host/co-host/Panelist, participants)
● Screen sharing
● Possibility to have full settings for the host (to cut microphones, to accept/ reject someone...)
● Possible to have multiple translation channels
● Possibility to have 150 -750 people simultaneous (at least 300)
● Possibility to connect with other livestream channels (Zoom can be linked with YouTube or
Facebook)
Optional elements
● Webinar mode for interactions with experts
In terms of logistics, the following elements need supervision
● Protocol for access to the online tools (made by the moderation team)
● Training for participants before the first session (made by the moderation team)
● Assistance team (for helping participants once they are on the Platform + hotline (made by
Secretariat)
● Equipment for some participants: headphones, computer, data-key, venues?
5.3.3 Focus on the facilitation for online sessions or on-line intersession activities
A good coordination between all the members is needed to ensure a good process. The team is composed
of:
● The main moderator is in charge of guiding the group during the Plenary. The facilitators follow
the instructions given by the main moderator in Plenary and reformulate them in the breakout
rooms.
● The host is the “master” of the session. He/she can send participants to breakout rooms, rename of
participants, etc. This person cannot be the main moderator or a facilitator, as he/she will be leading
the logistics of Zoom and has to stay in Plenary during the deliberation in breakout rooms. When
participants are in a breakout room, they can call (thanks to a specific button) the main moderator
to come to their breakout room if they need help.
● The facilitators have to be granted/nominated co-host by the main moderator to gain control-settings
(as mute/unmute participants, rename them, change of breakout rooms…). They are in charge of
the facilitation in breakout rooms and have limited controls to ensure this (share screen, chat, etc.).
We strongly advise you to have two facilitators for each breakout room.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
48 / 121
link to page 49
● Support team. 3 persons that also have to be nominated co-host. Their role is to help participants to
manage the Zoom Platform and ensure that the dialogue can go on in the best way (unmute/mute
people, use of private conversation for technical problems, rename people). You can also ask this
team to fulfill different tasks: Responsible for technical issues, Follow-up of the chat, … We advise
you to share these people’s phone numbers in Plenary so that participants can call them if needed.
The use of an informal backup channel like Telegram or WhatsApp only for the
moderators/facilitators/support team is a great help to ensure a quick exchange of information and questions
and to coordinate.
5.3.4 Guidelines for participants for digital tools, especially for videoconference15
Many citizens, far from the digital world, do not know how to use this type of tool or are not familiar. When
recruiting participants, it is important to identify these persons (by asking: Do you have a computer or a
smartphone? Have you ever participated in online meetings? Do you have an Internet connection? etc.) For
those who don’t have these tools, it’s important to provide them one before the first online meeting.
It will be necessary to send to the participants a guide explaining how to connect and the different
functionalities of the tool (mute/unmute, open/close camera, raise the hand, chat, etc). Then, the team in
charge of the participants needs to make sure that each participant is comfortable with the digital tool so
that everything goes well on the D-day. They call the persons identified during the recruitment and test the
tool with them.
The virtual room needs to be opened 30 minutes before starting. It will allow participants to get used to the
system.
5.4 Participants guidelines
5.4.1 Principles
Participants will arrive in a process they don’t know and which can be very disturbing or fastly become a
mental burden. The aim is always having the best participant-experience for all of them. On the one hand,
there is a need to have clear rules at the beginning of the process to prevent any overflows and any
breakdown during the exchanges and other activities. The charter, the rules of conduct and the media
communication of citizens are settled as prevention tools. On the other hand, we also want to let the
participants create and build their own experiences, by giving them some autonomy (and accordingly
responsibility). Informal communication channels and dedicated Platforms for them will give them the
opportunity to discuss and interact with other participants, creating a sense of community.
5.4.2 Dedicated tools
●
The Charter: the charter is a document that every participant must sign (can be done before or at
the first session) in order to be part of the whole process. It concerns not only the discussions, but
also the intersessions, the relations with the staff, with the media. It gives explanation on the process
and on the role, the rights and obligations participants have as participants, but also as
representatives of all the Europeans. An example of Charter is to be found in annex 16.
15 Online session or online intersessional activities.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
49 / 121
●
Rules of conduct: rules of conduct are the rules the participants are expected to follow during the
discussions, in order to have constructive and good quality deliberation. The rules could be updated
or discussed by all the participants at the first session, to let them the feeling of “we create our own
rules”. We could also imagine having those rules attached and put in the room where sessions will
take place. Those rules are to be found in WP5.
●
Media communication: As we learn from experience that participants will be subject to a
tremendous amount of journalist’s or media’s sollicitation, we think it could be valuable to have
some guidelines on the way participants will interact with them. A lot of citizens are not used to
such an exercise and some journalists may try to provoke or trap some citizens. Between the
sessions, when participants return home, they may become public personalities. That is why we
propose to have some tools they can use such a (more details in work packages 5 and 6):
○ FAQ about what to do or not do about communication
○ Dedicated # and rules to use it
○ Media training (optional on-line training)
○ Dedicated-to-media animators to ensure support
5.4.3 Creating a sense of community
Different scaled possibilities could be envisaged here, depending on the means we put herein and the
interaction we want between participants.
The minimum requirement and easiest possibility are to have a descending communication channel with
citizens in order to have a quick communication access with them
● Mailing list, hold by secretariat, who is also in charge of the translation
● WhatsApp loop per country, with one to 5 focal point/referents per country, under the coordination
of the secretariat
● Have a shared file where we put all the documents that could be useful for the participants. We
could imagine give the possibility for participants to put some documents on the shared file
But we can imagine having a specific place on the Platform for the participants, where citizens can discuss,
interact and share between themselves, creating a community with which the secretariat can also
communicate. It can be very useful for intersession work (see 2.7.3 for further details about this space on
the Platform).
5.5 Guidelines for visitors
5.5.1 Principles
Openness and transparency imply that the Panels must be observable by a lot of people, directly on site or
by a broadcast.
The Panels are not “black boxes”, they are a living place of democracy and thus be open to observers. But
at the same time, the citizens of the Panels must discuss in a quiet atmosphere and should not be under
pressure or under influence. There is a fair balance to find between the protection of the participants and
openness.
The following rules aim at that.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
50 / 121
link to page 51 link to page 51
5.5.2 Who are the visitors?
● Researchers: it will be experts of deliberative processes who want to watch the whole process of
the conference in order to evaluate it
16.
● Observers from the Observation Mission, which is a group composed of members of the Plenary
17.
● Individual observers:
○ All politicians from the European or national level will be invited to watch and observe.
○ The question of the attendance of other citizens, NGOs, stakeholders must be asked.
=> Maybe a system of quota can be settled to ensure not only one group can attend to the sessions
● Experts and resource persons will be invited to come to the Panels and be questioned by the citizens
during the dedicated session and depending on the format and the topic of the Panels. They can be
researchers, academics, associations, high-level servants, members of international organizations,
involved citizens...Experts will be selected in coordination with the European institutions while
representing the diversity of the opinion around a topic
● (Accredited) media from local, national, European and international levels (a quota could be useful
here also). All accredited media will have the opportunity to interview the participants and the staff
5.5.3 What rules apply to them?
Visitors are expected to present themselves to the facilitation team from their first visit and will be
announced and presented to citizens at the beginning of each session. In order to understand the process and
organization of the event, visitors will be invited to attend animators’ presentations that will be held at the
beginning of each session (or the day before). They will receive information sheets on session’s thematic
and agendas.
Total number of visitors allowed to participate in the session (or per day) could be limited (e.g., to 20 people)
depending on attendance, with quotas for each kind of visitor.
In order not to disrupt citizen’s deliberations, only one visitor per table/ per group will be allowed to assist
discussions. If they want to record an audio of discussions, they must ask citizen’s permission previous to
the discussion. Visitors will be allowed to submit anonymous questionnaires to citizens. In order not to
overload citizens with too much information between sessions and to preserve animations’ timeline, visitors
and researchers shall prepare only two questionnaires for each session, one submitted at the beginning and
one at the end. Citizens should answer voluntarily. All results will be accessible by visitors and researchers
wishing to use it. Citizen’s personal data shall be collected at their discretion, only at the end of the last
session and only in order to plan eventual interviews after the last session. Citizens should express their
agreement by a written statement. All results will be accessible for study and research
16 For more information, please refer to WP7.
17 For more information, please refer to WP7.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
51 / 121
Visitors shall respect the table's dynamics and not interfere in any way into citizen’s discussions during the
whole deliberation time. They should adopt a neutral position during all interactions they might have with
participants towards the thematic or the sessions in order not to create biases. Visitors and researchers can
interact freely with citizens during breaks and meal times but keeping always in mind their neutral position
and avoiding keeping them apart from crucial collective informal interactions with other participants.
Visitors can interact with the media if they are solicited but only outside session rooms and time frames in
order not to disrupt the overall process. They must preserve neutrality towards the sessions and thematic
during their interactions with the media. They could receive support from animators dedicated to the media
in order to be sure guidelines and information are integrated.
5.6 COVID-19 measures and sanitary precautions
Setting up of COVID-19 task force and regular update measures on current Covid situation in the EU / all
Member States (together with EU Commission).
5.6.1 Developing COVID-19 guidelines for Citizen Panels for any in-person meetings
If the event is held face-to-face, it will be necessary to apply a strict sanitary protocol, validated by the local
health authorities in which the session is held (see annex 14).
5.6.2 Material to provide
● hydro-alcoholic gel (at the entrance, several other points in the venue and at each discussion table)
● surgical masks (change is required every 4 hours)
● disinfectant wipes to clean the tables.
● Disposable tissues
● Personal package for each participant (individual pen, personal post-it, personal notebook,
documents required). The participants keep this personal package during the whole session. No
exchange of equipment will be allowed.
5.6.3 Breaks and meals
During breaks, coffee and beverages should be served by protocol staff wearing gloves, in a catering area
with floor markings to ensure physical distancing in the line. Snacks and beverages need to be individually
packaged.
Meals need to be offered in the form of individual trays. Each participant takes his/her tray in the catering
zone, following the one-way traffic direction. Meal trays should be prepared according to the adapted
hygiene measures.
5.6.4 The venue
The venue capacity should be divided by 2. For example, in the case of 150 participants per meeting (+ 50
staff and observers), the room capacity needs to be 400 persons. There should be windows in order to
ventilate during breaks, approximately every 3 hours, at least 15 minutes. A one-way traffic direction is
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
52 / 121
possible by tracing the ground and information signs to limit crossings, inbound, outbound, and towards the
toilets. We must take care to install people on disinfected chairs with 1.5 meters of distance.
5.6.5 Sensitization and prevention
Before the session, a COVID-19 protocol needs to be defined and sent to participants. During the session’s
day, messages reminding the participants of the barrier gestures and the main sanitary precautions are
regularly announced by the facilitators, while posters reminding recommendations and barrier gestures are
displayed in the venue
The contact information of the COVID-19 referent is communicated to all participants and members of the
organization. This person will ensure that all measures necessary for the proper application of this protocol
are implemented.
If a participant shows symptoms: each participant is invited to check his/her body temperature every
morning. If the temperature is higher than 38°C, the participant must inform the organizer and refrain from
coming during the half-day. If someone in the participant's household is infected with the virus, the
participant should stay home and notify the organizer. If the participant develops symptoms during the day
of the meeting (fever, dry cough, fatigue), he or she will be isolated and cared for by security personnel,
who will apply the procedures. The participant must notify the organization in case of a positive test for
COVID-19.
5.6.6 Control procedures and evidence gathering on the application of the rules
Moderators should take a photograph of each discussion table to keep track of the seating arrangement of
the participants around the table.
5.7 Next steps
Task
Contributor(s)
Dissemination
Deadline /
Minimum time
required
Consortium
Visitors
As soon as the
public
Production/adaptation of guidelines for
communication on
visitors and researchers
Panels begin
Consortium
Media
As soon as the
public
Production/adaptation of guidelines for
communication on
the media
Panels begin
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
53 / 121
Production of updated COVID-19
Consortium
One month before
guidelines for citizens
citizens
the Panels
Consortium
Secretariat of the As soon as the
Executive Board dates of the Panels
and location are
known.
Preparation of Covid-19 task force
At least 1 month
(updates on measures/situation
before the first
monitoring)
session.
Preparation of evaluation and reporting Consortium
Secretariat of the Ideally before the
framework for each session
Executive Board summer.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
54 / 121
6. Annexes
The annexes are divided in two parts:
●
Complementary documents: specific short notes already done during the first phase of the design
●
Draft documents for next milestones: drafts of operational documents to finalise in the next
coming weeks, after key decisions on methodology by the Executive Board.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
55 / 121
6.1 Complementary documents
Annex 1 - Common terminology
COMMON TERMINOLOGY
Main proposal
2nd choice
Concept
Equivalent in the
Equivalent in the notes
Joint Declaration drafted by the European
Commission
N/A
The contractor delivering Panels
N/A
External service provider
Panel organisers
External Evaluator
N/A
The contractor delivering external
N/A
N/A
evaluation from May onwards
Session
N/A
A weekend meeting of 2 days. (or 2,5
N/A
Deliberative session
days)
N/A
(Random selection if Kantar is not doing Diversity
Random selection of citizens
Random selection
proper civic lottery)
Resource-persons
Practitioners;
Different kinds of resource-persons
N/A
Experts and stakeholders
(different kinds of
witnesses;
(practitioners; stakeholders; witnesses).
experts, stakeholders stakeholders;
and professionals)
professionals
Panel members
Panelists
Instead of participants in the Panel.
Citizens
Citizens
Lead facilitation /
N/A
N/A
N/A
Facilitators
facilitators Group facilitation /
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
facilitators
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
56 / 121
N/A
Language used as relay when interpreting N/A
N/A
Relay language
several languages (indirect interpreting into
the less used languages).
Independent
N/A
External researchers doing their own
N/A
N/A
researchers
research.
N/A
Permanent resource-group; members of the N/A
N/A
staff dedicated to check information upon
Fact checkers
request or to search factual information in
response at the requests of citizens, during
a session (or in the intersession).
Advisory Group
N/A
For each Panel. Provides advice on all
N/A
N/A
parts.
Reference group
N/A
For each subtopic.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Outputs are anything that is produced by N/A
Outcome of their discussions
the Panelists during their deliberations with
Output
the intent of distribution towards actors
within the CoFoE framework or beyond.
The Panel outputs serve as objectives and
milestones of the deliberative process.
N/A
Outputs can come in different
forms – be it N/A
N/A
Output form
written text, visualizations, or even
audiovisual material.
N/A
Outputs vary by their
type and we
N/A
N/A
differentiate between an agenda, a vision,
Output type
and political recommendations. Each
output type has different characteristics
and a different purpose.
N/A
An
agenda is an organized set or list of
N/A
N/A
Agenda
topics, issues, or questions that will be
addressed and debated during the Panel
sessions.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
57 / 121
N/A
A
vision is a preferred, idealized situation N/A
N/A
or final state in the future. Its long-term
Vision
nature leaves room for imagination and
sets no limits regarding its features. A
vision can serve as a point of reference for
drafting political recommendations.
N/A
A
political recommendation is an output N/A
Panels’ recommendations,
type that is expressed in a short statement
final recommendations
demanding political action and has a clear
“target subject”, i.e. an actor or entity that
is addressed. Political recommendations
Political
can be
broad (“The EU should provide
recommendation
more opportunities for citizen
participation”) or
specific (“The EU should
institutionalize an annual citizen assembly
with changing topics that is composed of
randomly selected citizens from all EU
member states”).
N/A
An
output document is a compilation of N/A
N/A
different outputs in an edited and printed
(or digital) format. The outputs of the
Output document
Citizens Panels are enclosed in different
documents: Intermediate Panel reports,
final Panel reports and the joint final report
that contains all four citizen Panels.
N/A
An
intermediate Panel report is an output N/A
N/A
document that is compiled after each
Intermediate Panel
session of a Panel. It summarizes the state
report
of deliberations and the progress made
during a session. The intermediate Panel
reports are published shortly after the
respective session.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
58 / 121
N/A
The
final Panel report is an output
N/A
N/A
document that contains all outputs of one
citizen Panel, especially the political
Final Panel report
recommendations (but can also comprise
other output types like the agenda and
vision). It will be published shortly after
the last Panel session and presented in the
following Plenary session.
N/A
The
joint final report of the European
N/A
The Panels will lead to a
Citizens’ Panel is the ultimate and most
specific analysis/report
central output document. It represents more
based on the original citizens’
than just the sum of the final Panel reports,
ideas as expressed during the
as it is a comprehensive report on all four
Panels. It will contain the
citizens Panels. As such, it comprises all
final recommendations but
outputs, a detailed account of the
also a detailed account of the
Joint final report
methodology, parts of the evaluation, and
content of the Panels’
graphic elements.
discussions. This will include
the argumentations and
debates as well as the
different deliberative steps
that led to these.
Members of Plenary
N/A
(relevance of this suggestion to discuss)
N/A
N/A
Recruitment's
Kantar
N/A
N/A
Kantar
organizer Visitors
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
59 / 121
Annex 2 - Selection of citizens - Simulation per country
200 Citizens based on EU Parliament's seats distribution per country
The following table explains the procedure of calculations for citizens' selection per country for the
Conference on the Future of Europe. This scenario shows the selection of 200 citizens following the
distribution of EU Parliament's seats with an over-representation of young people (under 25 years old)
estimated at 33% (1/3).
Numbers in
column B have been found on the EU parliament's website and integrate the new distribution
of seats
after Brex
it (https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies/european-
parliament_en).
Numbers in
column C are the ratio of the number of seats per country to the total number of seats (705).
E.g. Austria: 19 seats / 705 seats = 2.70%.
Numbers in
column D represent the gross number of citizens per country when the ratio of EU
parliament's seats per country is applied to the total number of citizens per Panel (200).
E.g. Greece:
2.98% of EU Parliament's seats * 200 = 5.96 citizens.
Numbers in
column E are the same numbers as column D but rounded to the closest unit (as it is not
possible to have 1.5 citizens).
E.g. Croatia: 3.40 citizens = 3 citizens & Spain: 16.74 citizens = 17
citizens.
Numbers in
column F represent the number of young people (under 25 years old) over-represented at 1/3
of the total selected population. For calculations, numbers in column E are multiplied by 0.33 (33% =
1/3).
E.g. Hungary: 6*0.33 = 2 citizens under 25 years old.
Numbers in
column G are the number of citizens over the age of 25 years old. They represent how many
citizens "left" when column F is subtracted from column E.
E.g. Portugal: 6 citizens in total - 2 citizens
under 25 years old = 4 citizens over 25 years old. PS: another way for calculation is to multiply column
E by 0.66 (1-0.33 = 66% or 2/3).
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
60 / 121
The following color distribution helps to
visualize
even/odd numbers. This will be
useful when it will be necessary to set the
Even number
Odd numbers
number of female/male citizens per country.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Number of
Number of
Number of
Adjusted citizens under Number of
Country
seats at EU Percentage of citizens per
number of the age of 25 citizens
Parliament per distribution
country
citizens
(over-
over the age
country
(Gross)
(Round)
represented -
of 25
33%)
Austria
19
2.70%
5.39
5
2
3
Belgium
21
2.98%
5.96
6
2
4
Bulgaria
17
2.41%
4.82
5
2
3
Croatia
12
1.70%
3.40
3
1
2
Cyprus
6
0.85%
1.70
2
1
1
Czech Republic
21
2.98%
5.96
6
2
4
Denmark
14
1.99%
3.97
4
1
3
Estonia
7
0.99%
1.99
2
1
1
Finland
14
1.99%
3.97
4
1
3
France
79
11.21%
22.41
22
7
15
Germany
96
13.62%
27.23
27
9
18
Greece
21
2.98%
5.96
6
2
4
Hungary
21
2.98%
5.96
6
2
4
Ireland
13
1.84%
3.69
4
1
3
Italy
76
10.78%
21.56
22
7
15
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
61 / 121
Latvia
8
1.13%
2.27
2
1
1
Lithuania
11
1.56%
3.12
3
1
2
Luxembourg
6
0.85%
1.70
2
1
1
Malta
6
0.85%
1.70
2
1
1
Netherlands
29
4.11%
8.23
8
3
5
Poland
52
7.38%
14.75
15
5
10
Portugal
21
2.98%
5.96
6
2
4
Romania
33
4.68%
9.36
9
3
6
Slovakia
14
1.99%
3.97
4
1
3
Slovenia
8
1.13%
2.27
2
1
1
Spain
59
8.37%
16.74
17
6
11
Sweden
21
2.98%
5.96
6
2
4
Total number
of seats
705
100.00%
200
200
66
134
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
62 / 121
Annex 3 - Simulation on language repartition per subgroup
Option 1: (Random configuration) 20 groups of 10 / 4 languages per table / No min-max same language
Tables
GER
FR/GER
FR/DU
BUL
CRO
GRE
CZ
DAN
EST
FIN
FR
HUN ENG/IRL
IT
LET
LIT ENG/MAL
DU
POL
POR
RO
SLK
SLV
SPA
SWE
Total
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
10
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
10
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
10
7
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
10
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
10
9
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
10
10
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
2
0
10
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
0
2
0
10
12
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
10
13
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
10
14
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
10
15
0
0
0
2
2
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
16
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
63 / 121
18
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
20
0
2
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
Total
32
2
6
5
3
8
6
4
2
4
22
6
4
22
2
3
2
8
15
6
9
4
2
17
6
200
Option 2: (Random configuration) 25 groups of 8 / 3 languages per table / min 2 - max 4 same language per table
Tables
GER
FR/GER
FR/DU
BUL
CRO
GRE
CZ
DAN
EST
FIN
FR
HUN ENG/IRL
IT
LET
LIT ENG/MAL
DU
POL
POR
RO
SLK
SLV
SPA
SWE
Total
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
8
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
8
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
8
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
8
5
4
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
8
6
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
7
4
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
9
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
8
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
8
11
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
8
13
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
64 / 121
15
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
8
16
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
17
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
8
18
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
8
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
8
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
8
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
8
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
8
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
3
8
Total
32
2
6
5
3
8
6
4
2
4
22
6
4
22
2
3
2
8
15
6
9
4
2
17
6
200
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
65 / 121
Annex 4 - Compensation of citizen juries per countries
Disclaimer: The following tab is just an illustration of the different options and rates that exist among
European countries.
They is a list of selected countries, as a lot of EU countries do not have any form of jury , others do not
have automatic jury (but semi-professional jury or jury not for the full process,…) and for those which have
jury, there are a lot of variations (in Belgium, all jury cases take place in Brussel, while in Germany, they
depend on the region and it has an impact of travel and stay compensation).
Per diem (in €)
Transport (in €) Stay (in €)
Launch (in €)
Comments
Spain
67/day
0,19 /km
65,97
18,7
(with
breakfast)
France
88/day
0,3-0,4/km
70-110
17,50
(depending on (depending
the vehicle)
on the
city)
Belgium
42,51/day
0,5/km
/
/
Ireland
Possibility to be paid by
/
/
Provided
employer while being on
jury service.
Germany
Depends on the region:
0,3/km
/
/
6€/hour (possible up to
24eu/hour)
= 48€ for 8 hours work
Portugal
102/day
/
/
/
Jury duty is
applicable only in
the area of residence
Slovenia
21 per diem + 8,5/hour
0,1/km
/
/
(salary compensation) +
2€/30 min of presence at the
court
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
66 / 121
Austria
Depends on the region:
Paid
/
/
6euro/hour (possible
24€/hour) + loss of salary
48€ for 8 hours work
Denmark
148
6,5/day
§
/
Italy (non
50/60
Paid
Amount used by
official)
partners in
deliberative
processes
Poland
75 €
50
10
Amount used by
(non
partners in
official)
deliberative
processes
Average
60-65
0,4/km
70
15
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
67 / 121
Annex 5 - Budget Narrative for the citizen’s Panels (version April 27)
1. Definitions
1.1 Sessions
What is a session?
A session has three blocks:
1. Preparation and onboarding: Participants and teams get ready for work.
2. Deliberation: Participants and teams discuss, interact, moderate, etc.
3. Wrap-up: Participants and teams sum up the session and go home.
What is a face-to-face session?
• A face-to-face session is deployed in a physical place.
• Participants arrive on day 1, afternoon (get together and reconnect with others), work on day 2
and 3 and depart on day 4 morning, for a total of 3 days and 3 nights on-site.
• Members of the team arrive on day 1 morning, work on day 2 and 3 and depart on day 4 evening,
for a total of 4 days and 3 nights on-site.
What is a short online session (Kickoff and Fol ow-up)?
• For kickoff and Follow-up An online session is deployed through a videoconferencing tool backed
by a central studio.
• Participants join for 6 hours of online presence divided in 2 blocks: One top-down block and one
interactive block.
• They need 2 hours for onboarding.
• Members of the team need to connect half a day before for preparation. They need half a day of
debriefing.
What is a ful online session (backup plan)?
• An online session is deployed through a videoconferencing tool backed by a central studio.
• Participants join for 12 hours of work divided in 4 or 6 blocks.
• They need 2 hours for onboarding.
• Members of the team need to connect half a day before for preparation. They need half a day of
debriefing.
What is a hybrid session?
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
68 / 121
• A hybrid session mixes online and face-to-face formats. This format is not an option now but
could be developed at a later stage.
1.2 Panelists
Citizens, Participants, Panelists
• People from all over Europe coming from all walks of life that will gather to discuss, learn,
propose, envision, dream, realize. They will embark on a unique journey for them and for Europe.
Citizens are the reason why we all put the process in motion.
Minor participants
• In each Panel, it is estimated that 13 participants will be adolescent minors (aged 16-17).
• They will have to receive their parents’ authorization including for travelling and the agreement
on the Panel’s rules and framework, while they will also require dedicated assistance during the
sessions, as well as during spare moments.
• We intend to involve an organization in each host country, with the legal authorization to act with
teenagers. The language question will have to be addressed depending on the language skills of
the participants. They will be contacted before the first session, by one facilitator from their
country.
• Participants with special needs
• In each Panel, it is estimated that some participants will have special needs ranging from mobility
and accessibility issues up to food regime.
• This will have an impact in terms of budget (need to find a special room accessible, special food,
etc.).
2. Assumptions and disclaimer
For this budget narrative we have taken following assumptions into account:
● 200 citizens / Panels
● 4 Panels
● Process for 1 Panel:
○ 1 online Kick-off 1 day with 800 participants (estimate based on 40 sub-group with 4
languages)
○ 3 face-to-face sessions: 0,5 day arriving, 2 days of work, 0,5 day leaving
○ 1 online follow-up session 1 day with 800 participants (estimate based on 40 sub-group
with 4 languages)
● 10 citizens / subgroup, so 20 subgroups, 1 facilitator per group
● 4 languages / subgroup so 8 interprets / subgroup
Please note that all IT/technical approach and budget are only valid with freelance interpreters. The
suggested interpretation system will not fit with SCIC requirements.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
69 / 121
This budget is a pre-study of the costs of the process as a whole, it does necessarily reflect the budget that
is directly to be subcontracted to the implementation team. Some parts of the costs can be
supported/activated through other partners and institutions.
This budget is a rough estimate. We consider that there is a 15% margin of error for each category listed
below. A detailed budget will most probably lead to some costs being lower or higher than expected and
other expenses might appear at a later stage.
We consider this note as a basis for discussion and collective brainstorming as implementation engineering
and risk management should be further assessed.
We are fully conscious that the budget may appear important. We would like to remind the current budget
of the European Parliament which costs ca €2.000.000.000 a year (2018) for around 705 participants. The
process here has a 80 times lower cost for ca 100 more participants.
Some costs are transversal costs which should not be considered per session or Panel. We have shared these
costs among the different sessions based on the above assumptions to create a mean value for those costs.
These are mostly Delivery costs.
3. Delivery
3.1 Coordination
Team in charge of the coherence of the production of inter-Panel work, the production of the 4 Panels:
Coordination of the process (methodology) and quality management of Panels.
A team will be dedicated to keep the integrity of the process and the coherence between the Panels, the
interface Panels – Plenary, the follow up of the evaluation, and the decisions to improve the process (within
a session when necessary, between the sessions, and make sure each Panel benefit from the experience of
the others). Also, this team will take charge of the organization of workshops between the sessions including
evaluators and main facilitators, the coordination with the knowledge management, the interaction with the
CoFoE secretariat.
This process represents the equivalent of 450 days.
3.2 Training of teams
The teams of facilitators and secretariat need to be trained to ensure the quality of the Panelists’ experience
and the quality of the deliberation.
This represents an effort for 4 senior and 4 junior team members from September until February.
3.3 Branding
Visual identity of Panels
4. Knowledge Production, Provision and Management
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
70 / 121
Providing citizens with a measured amount of knowledge is key to good deliberation. The effort for these
tasks is approx. 450 days of work.
4.1 Advisory Group
For each Panel, an Advisory Group will be formed with up to 8 people that will advise the Panel responsible
contractor on the kind of knowledge to be provided, who can help deliver it, and in what shape exactly.
Each Advisory Group will have a coordinator in charge of coordinating the input, feedback, reviews etc.
from the Advisory Group members.
4.2 Information briefing for Panelists
Before session 1, the following will be produced: a 5-10 pages introduction to the subject(s) to be discussed
by the Panel and 5-10 fact sheets of no more than a page each. Subcontracting will be made for a science
journalist who will also be responsible for editing abstracts for witness/expert presentations at the various
sessions to be sent by surface mail to Panel members ahead of each session. The introduction document
will frame the deliberation of the Panel members and will be produced in close coordination with the
Advisory Group and consultation with a wider group of experts and stakeholders.
At session 1, up to 5 witnesses/experts with alternative visions of the future of Europe, seen from the
perspective of the subject(s) discussed by the Panel, will give presentations. Costs: fees and travels.
Advisory Board members and science journalists will also be present and answer factual questions from
Panel members.
Between Session 1 and 2, reference groups for each of the subtopics selected by the Panel members will
be identified and recruited. Some of them will be available for answering questions from Panel members
on the Platform before session 2 and between session 2 and 3. Some of them will also be invited to speak
at Session 2. Abstracts will be collected, edited, translated, and sent to Panel members before Session 2 (if
logistics and time schedule allows). Anticipating 5 subtopics, 5 reference groups with 4-5 experts in each,
up to 25 experts will be identified in collaboration with the Advisory Group. Each reference group member
would be available for answering questions from citizens before and at sessions 2 and 3, approximately 6
days each.
At
Session 2, three presentations will be made for each of the five subtopics.
Between Session 2 and 3, Reference Group members will answer questions from citizens and
approximately 15 witnesses/experts will be identified for Session 3 in collaboration with the Advisory
Group and based on the wishes of citizens, identified at Session 2.
At
Session 3, 15 witnesses/experts will give presentations (3 for each of the 5 subtopics)
4.2 Platform input
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
71 / 121
It is currently undecided what kind and amount of input from the Platform can be delivered to the Panel
members. It is equally undecided when in the Panel process it should be provided.
Our suggestions: Input to the Panels from the Platform should be restricted to issues that fall within the
subject(s) for discussion by a given Panel.
Input should be delivered for Sessions 1 and 2 only.
o For Session 1: A (max) 5-page overview of inputs to the Platform: focus on the kind of issues raised
and recommendations given, with an equal focus on who has provided the input (citizens, industry,
NGO, etc..). The overview should be edited by a science journalist, translated and sent to Panel
members before Session 1
o For Session 2: A 2-3 page overview of issues raised and recommendations given which fall within
the scope of the 5 subtopics chosen by the Panel members. The overviews should be edited by a
science journalist, translated and sent to Panel members before Session 2.
4.3 Video editing
All presentations made in session plenaries will be edited and published on the public part of the Platform.
4.4 Cross-Panel coordination
Following each Panel session, a 3-hour review meeting will be organized to share learnings, dos and don’ts,
including Panel organizers for all four Panels and the designated reviewers of the session.
4.5 Fact-checkers
A fact-checker team — 3 to 5 people — will be present in each Panel to answer questions from participants
and bring the necessary information to the participants. A room will be provided to that team, in conjunction
with an “information room”[1] available to the participants with existing documents.
This role can be offered for instance to Bachelor students in European and thematic studies in relation with
the Panel topic.
5. Logistics and Technical Setting
5.1 Face-to-face session
Infrastructure
● Internet capacity (for the interpretation and possible use of the CoFoE Platform).
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
72 / 121
● Video projection system and multiple screens should be set-up in the main hall.
● Sound system equipment + Interpretation equipment depending on selected system.
● Classic infrared systems for Plenary sessions will require the set-up of 24 translation booths which
affects the required room size and the budget.
● Radio systems for sub-group sessions can be arranged if interpreters are seated at each table.
● In addition to the secretariat, a team must be present to host citizens and observers (6 persons for
the welcoming, 6 for security, 2 to 4 for the control, 1 electrician and 1 computer technician.
● If the interpreters are remote during on site sessions, participants can follow the interpretation from
their smartphone (protocol to be assessed).
● Laptops for facilitators
Venue
Stage design of the Plenary — branding of the event (if media present, it may be necessary); stage
background to install, interview corner with a background, roll-ups, ... (transportable from place to place).
The venue choice will depend on various parameters:
● Ideally a large flat room, to be equipped with table, chairs, technical facilities, .. ), so that Plenary
sessions and subgroups take place in the same place, without wasting the time of transfers to
breakout rooms.
● The choice of venue needs to give credibility to the process, with media access
● Public venue can contribute to reduce the budget impact
Catering
The number of on-site participation is still to be confirmed:[2]
● Up to 400 people per day, if we consider all coordination, staff, facilitators, experts, CoFoE
representatives, journalists, interpreters.
● A social event on Friday evening is to be confirmed and estimated, evening venue as well.
● The other dinner venues (Saturday/Sunday) are also to be confirmed.
Hotels and Trips
These will have to be covered for all Panelists, for the team as well as for experts and witnesses.
5.2 Online session
Software
Video-conferencing software with multilingual capacity (based on Zoom/Olyusei/CPSL)
Hardware
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
73 / 121
Tablets for 15% of participants that will have no device at home
Studio
An online session demands for a symbolic and physical place for main moderation, high level experts and
decision makers, cultural events online, etc.
5.3 Common
Interface with CoFoE Platform
The online Platform with the specific “assemblies” function, per Panel, will ease the exchanges between
participants, without going public, to share arguments, to formulate propositions. It will be used as a
practical tool for documents sharing, before, during and after the sessions (content, access, Plenary feed
backs).
Streaming of the sessions
The opening and closing plenaries of each session will be streamed (twice two hours). Some of the speakers
will also be streamed, live or with some delay. All language channels will have to be recorded for a 24
languages streaming.
6. Panelists’ Journey
6.1 Secretariat
A team - hereafter
the Panelists’ secretariat - supports the 800 Panelists and allows for an ideal journey.
This secretariat will support the participants’ travel reservations and support, consider specific needs (food,
special support, etc.), follow-up in real time (delays, contact, support, specific problem, insurance). This
support will be given as soon as the participants are confirmed by the recruiter. It will be provided before
the sessions, during the sessions, during the return and before next session.
The participants’ secretariat[3] [4] will work in max. 4/5 languages, with the support of identified
facilitators and/or trainees to cover the 24 languages. The amount of support expected from the facilitators
and the workflow between them and the secretariat is still to assess. This support and the training phase
were not included in the first budget version.
This secretariat will also support the following groups who will take part to the Panels:
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
74 / 121
● Observers from the Plenary (with an option for other observers)
● CoFoE Secretariat team
● Facilitation and evaluation team
● Research team (independent researchers)
● Interpretation team
● Media
● Experts and speakers
● Technical team
● People in charge of output production (filmmakers, photographers, painters, and other creative
artists)
It will organize the administrative follow-up of the participants (list of attendance per half days), and the
administrative follow-up of the payment/reimbursement of costs and per diem.
It will organize all logistics for the events and coordinate with the lead facilitators and the CoFoE secretariat.
6.2 Equipment
Hardware and access
Those participants[5] that will need to receive an equipment (this may include a connection to the web) to
follow the online sessions and have access to the Platform will receive special assistance from the
participant secretariat (at least half a day of support for 15% of the participants).
Welcome kit
Each participant receives a kit upon arriving: hydro alcoholic gel, Covid rules, notepad, tote bag, personal
headset for the interpretation device and online sessions.
Per Diem
As acknowledgement of their participation and engagement participants receive a per diem. This per diem
is based on the mean of the per diem paid to jury members in the countries of the European Union. We
estimate this to be 70€ / day.
Certificate
We will have to produce a proper certificate of participation for participants.
7. Facilitation
7.1 Facilitation team
The facilitation team is made up of facilitators from EU countries (objective: each language is spoken by
at least one facilitator). Facilitators will take charge of liaising with citizens during intersessional time
(except on logistical aspects)
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
75 / 121
Participants are gathered in Plenary (interpretation in 24 languages) or in subgroups (ideally subgroups of
10 people, in which 3 or 4 languages are spoken — including a language among the following ones: French,
German, English, Italian, Spanish — which requires the accompaniment of each group by 8 interpreters
sharing the relay language.
We do not recommend switching to larger groups (15 people per group means significantly lowering each
person's speaking time:
● It is considered that in such a group, 20% of the time is non-productive time because busy with
translations, 100 minutes becomes 80 minutes useful.
● If 10 people share this time, it is 8 minutes per person.
● If 15 people share it, that's 5.3 minutes, or 34% less speaking time.
Each subgroup is led by a facilitator, who takes notes and produces a synthesis of his subgroup each evening
in a shared document (e.g., Google Drive folder), in English. Each facilitator is trained ahead of the session
(provided one day for distance training, to the particular protocol of the session and knowledge of the issues
per session and two day before for a general training on facilitation and CoFoE stakes, plus the day of
arrival, the four days of facilitation, and two days thereafter to bring his evaluation and finalize his
contributions. A WhatsApp thread could bring together all facilitators during the sessions. An additional
option is to have a dedicated writer at each table (instead of the facilitator - trained interns, freely).
→ It means 20 facilitators per Panel, with a workload of 8 days per session.
We estimate the need to facilitate the intersessional time of each session (mails to the citizens,
encouragement and help to use the Platform) to 30 days per Panel (for the duration of the Panels).
One option is to have subgroups of 8 people: this solution improves the speaking time and the quality of
discussion but increases the team.
7.2 Moderation
A team of 3 main moderators will lead each Panel. They will
● Guide through the Plenary sessions
● Support the facilitators (including their training).
● Support the eight Panels members interacting with the CoFoE Plenary.
● Be the interface with the evaluation team and the “embedded” researchers.
● Validate the synthesis to be shared with the participants, the CoFoE Plenary and the public at large.
● Be the focal point for the media.
● During the intersession, the main facilitators will organise the work of the facilitators and the
feedbacks and produce the detailed roll-out of the session. The main facilitators will also be in
charge of leading the knowledge management.
8. Interpretation
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
76 / 121
link to page 77
If four languages are spoken in each sub-group, this will represent 3 active interpreters during the sessions.
This represents 60 interpreters (or 120 if they need to work in pairs). Those interpreters will also cover the
plenaries.
If SCIC interpreters, the interpretation system and set-up will have to be adapted/changed.
9. Evaluation and Research
9.1 External evaluation
An independent evaluation will be carried out by different experts which should not be subcontracted within
the consortium delivering the Panels. Those experts will conduct an evaluation of the impact and outreach
of the recommendations and the process as well as an assessment of the deliberative quality of the Panels.
At least 4 experts in total
18 . This represents an average of 200 days of delivery per expert which could be
spread over time for up to 2 years.
9.2 Internal evaluation
This team evaluates each Panel and links its evaluation to the on-board research teams and external
evaluators The team will be composed of two sub teams that can work in parallel. This is essential as there
are always two Panels that overlap in time. Each sub team is composed of two evaluators and a junior
assistant per Panel, 3 persons per subteam and 6 persons in total. who will: coordinate the dataset flow
including the deployment of surveys for participants and staff, prepare each session evaluation process,
follow it, participate in a debriefing meeting each evening, coordinate participants evaluation meetings, and
provide a follow-up report within three days[6] of a session and then a Panel-by-Panel evaluation report.
This represents an average of 20 days of delivery per Panel session (including reporting).
A participants evaluation team of 10 people for each Panel. One extra online meeting of 2 hours after each
session. / Plan B. A final workshop at the end of each Panel with 10 randomly selected participants. One
online meeting. 4 hours.
9.3 Independent researchers
It is proposed that research teams dedicated to the topic and to the process could follow the Panels and
create a new corpus of knowledge. The objective is to reinforce the credibility of the process, and to
recognize the importance of research in deliberation and in European politics, at the initiative of institutions.
Those teams will have to be invited, selected and supported.[7] [8] We are thinking in 120 independent
researchers in total, some 30 per Panel (although they would not necessarily be distributed that way).
It should be at least 1 person full time during 8 months from June to February coordinating the independent
researchers in all the Panels. The data collection will be coordinated with the internal evaluation team (w1
person half time in each Panel during 8 months from June to February). The independent researchers should
have a referent in the CoFoE until 2 years after it happens so the researchers that want to do a follow-up
have a contact person that continues supporting them and their contacts with institutions / politicians /
officials / stakeholders, etc.
18 Considering the design as of 28 April with two concurrent Panels.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
77 / 121
Scholarships should be made available for independent researchers for travelling and accommodation to
ensure there is equal access to all the teams from all over Europe.
10. Output
10.1 Synthesis of each session
Two persons will be present in each session to prepare an 8 pages synthesis (3300 words each). This
production based on a pre-approved format will be produced in 24 languages.
14 days per session plus the time for the production of the document in a “citizens oriented” format.
10.2 Video of each session
Each session will be covered by a video team (director, assistant and video/sound technician). This team
will cover the session, interview participants from the 27 countries and speakers. A video for each Panel
will be produced (in 24 languages), and 1 video will present the interaction with the Plenary (5-10 min
films will be produced). Film budget is still to assess.
10.3 Final reporting and follow-up
From February until the end of the Conference there will be a need to produce final deliverables, support
citizens, create the link with the Plenary, and prepare the next phase of participation.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
78 / 121
Annex 6 - Biases in deliberative processes
1. Types of biases in correlation with deliberative processes
From design to implementation of deliberative processes, biases can intervene and have consequences on
the configuration, the processes, the results of the deliberative processes and also in the assessment of these
results: their impact can be mitigated if they are properly identified and anticipated. Biases are usually
mainly associated with data and less with cognitive biases, which relate to how we notice, interpret and
analyse evidence, and how we make conclusions and decisions based on previous analysis.
The following synthesis presents some main biases, in relation to deliberative processes.
Overall, biases will be here categorised as:
1.
biases of organisers (governing
2.
biases of citizens
institutions; facilitators and experts;
(cognitive biases of citizens that affect their
evaluators):
involvement and contribution to the
- biases in the selection process
deliberative process)
- biases in the facilitation process
- biases in the evaluation process
The first category refers to biases in the selection of participants, biases in facilitation processes, and biases
that can occur during and after the deliberative events, through evaluation schemes. The second category is
mostly dependent on the way citizens handle the available information that is exchanged, the interaction
with their counterparts, as well as according to their own perception of the deliberative process.
1.1 Selection of participants
[CoFoE: for the design of recruitment process (in the Handbook)]
In the design of deliberative processes, the selection of participants can be affected by several biases.
List of (some) potential biases:
● sampling biases (when some members of a population are more likely to be selected than others);
● time interval (early termination);
● data management (cherry picking);
● self-selection (volunteer bias);
● undercoverage;
● non-response (of affected groups).
Solutions to avoid these biases:
➢ Get and anticipate a strategy to reach vulnerable publics with different communication means about
the process and about the recruitment. The criteria used for the recruitment and the selection need
to be defined;
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
79 / 121
➢ Have local actors and relay that can help you make the link between the vulnerable publics and the
process;
➢ Get incentives and monetary compensation to allow everyone to participate;
➢ Individualize the participants: do not let them think they are just part of a group, but show them
that they all have legitimacy to participate;
➢ Make a mindmap of the reasons why people refuse to participate. Thanks to this mindmap we could
adapt the strategy.
1.2 Facilitation of deliberative processes
[CoFoE: for the facilitation guide (in the Handbook)]
During the implementation of deliberative processes, biases can interfere with the facilitation process, and
therefore have an impact on the decision-making process.
List of (some) potential biases:
● Preconceptions/framing effect/Halo effect (selective perception in the framing of issues): based on
the way participants act/speak/behave, one may have a wrong interpretation of understanding of
participants say or represent;
● Over-immersion in specific social values or perceptions;
● Political sponsorship;
● Organisational biases;
● False consensus: overestimating the proportion of people who agree with an idea, because there is
no conflict opposition (groupthink) or because feedback has not been received from all participants;
● Curse of knowledge: Once we know something, we assume everyone else knows it too.
Solutions to avoid these biases:
➢ Here there is a difficult balance to reach between having one moderator for the same group during
the whole process or alternate moderators (facilitators). On one hand it can create a particular link
between the moderator and the participants, on the other hand it can ensure that moderators, always
facing new participants, do not have a wrong interpretation;
➢ Thanks to the diversity of approaches (e.g. world café, discussions, moving debate, “picturisation”)
everyone can find his or her way to express himself or herself at best and break the barriers. Friendly
moments, outside deliberation can be helpful here;
➢ Moderators should always keep an eye on the minority voices, ensuring they are heard but also
confronted with the evolution of the discussions. On the one hand, it ensures no one is left alone in
his “minority bubble” and on the second hand it keeps the debate alive by constantly putting the
majority voice in questions.
➢ Break and off moments and exchanges moments for citizens and for facilitators could also be a
good way to let people think on their own and then restart the session/the day by coming back on
what has been said before and to re-settling the basis for discussions;
➢ The training for moderators will be decisive here. A detailed guide with launchers, re-launchers,
and mitigation processes will help them achieve their tasks. Participating in a “fake deliberation”
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
80 / 121
process, with people playing a specific character, could help facilitators react and adapt themselves
to various situations.
➢ Reformulate is key to the deliberation: it helps to know if a moderator understands what the citizens
are saying, it helps other participants to understand what one of their fellow is saying if they did
not understand, and it can bring nuances and act as a re-launcher. It also allows to keep a good
rhythm during the deliberation, while the reformulation can lead to validation from participants.
1.3 Evaluation of deliberative processes
[CoFoE: for the Evaluation Framework]
In evaluation procedures, several types of biases can interfere and create a systematic deviation of results
from what they should be: such biases can be of empirical nature (forms of cognitive biases), research-
related (e.g. allegiance biases, standpoint biases), of methodological nature (e.g. neutrality from what is
being evaluated, diplomatic biases), or even contextual (e.g. pro-project bias).
List of (some) potential biases:
● Confirmation bias;
● Media bias and coverage bias (selection of perspectives covered in the media);
● Funding bias;
● Belief bias: we judge an argument’s strength not by how strongly it supports the conclusion but
how plausible the conclusion is in our own minds;
● Concision bias and framing effect;
● Optimism effect & Zeigarnik effect (better recollection of a task when it has been interrupted): we
sometimes overestimate the likelihood of bad outcomes; or we sometimes are over-optimistic about
good outcomes;
● mistaking correlation for causation;
● distortion of data by media;
● homogenization of data sources;
● shortcuts in primary research;
● confusing desirability with probability;
● favoring change or patterns.
Solutions to avoid these biases:
➢ What is being said is important, but what is not discussed is also relevant for the evaluation;
➢ Let some room to the minority voices and take them into account (do not try to merge them into
the majority);
➢ Take a step back to analyse the link between the different Panels, the different sessions, the different
circumstances. Deliberations are evolutive and moving, it is important to avoid thinking in silos;
➢ Analyse individual and collective contributions hand in hand;
➢ Do not exclude any hypothesis or any recommendations but understand where they come from.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
81 / 121
2. Citizens’ (participants’) biases
[CoFoE: for the citizens’ guide/information material]
Since citizens participate in deliberative processes with their own cognitive biases, the quality of their
interaction and commitment may be affected.
List of (some) potential biases:
Group biases
● Authority biases & Halo effect;
● Impostor syndrome;
● Availability cascade: an idea accumulates more credibility as it spreads;
● In group favoritism: we favor people who are in our in-group as opposed to an out-group;
● Illusory truth: we tend to more easily trust an idea that we have heard/read about several times;
Individual biases
● Confirmation bias;
● Declinism: we romanticize the past and believe that society and institutions are in decline;
● Dunning Kruger biases (overconfidence of less qualified people);
● Curse of knowledge: once we know something, we assume everyone else knows it too;
● Backfire effect: disproving evidence sometimes has the unwarranted effect of confirming our
beliefs;
● Belief bias: we judge an argument’s strength not by how strongly it supports the conclusion but
how plausible the conclusion is in our own minds.
Solutions to avoid these biases:
➢ Get reflexion from the point of view of someone who is not you, from something you heard, you
have read or something you think you are an expert of;
➢ Start from a white page: ask people to express themselves based on their own experiences or with
their own words, not on what they heard or what they have seen;
➢ Reversely, you ask them to think through the position of others (putting oneself in the position of
another person, by creating a fake character — “persona”), so that they have to take the viewpoint
of another individual;
➢ Show the citizens that everyone’s assessment has a value and the same value as others’ ones;
➢ Having a break can be a good way to let people think on their own and then restart the session/the
day by coming back on what was said before;
➢ On the same dynamic, the alternation between collective and individual moments will help the
participants to make some distance between what was said in the group and what they really think
individually and make them understand how they feel towards the group’s discussion;
➢ Always link the discussions in the context of the deliberation process so that participants can take
some steps back, without being focused on one issue or one obstacle.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
82 / 121
Annex 7 – Recommendations for citizens’ panels at national level
The
Joint Declaration for the Conference on the Future of Europe foresees the Conference to be
accompanied by European citizens’ Panels. Also, each Member State can “
make further contributions to
the Conference, such as national citizens’ Panels”. For such national events in the framework of the
Conference, the
Joint Declaration states that they “
will be organised along a set of principles and minimum
criteria reflecting EU values to be defined by the Conference structures”.
This document serves to give recommendations on such principles and minimum criteria, which will be
implemented with the European citizens’ Panels and should be taken into account for national citizens’
Panels.
Guidelines for a good deliberation
These guidelines are inspired by the principles of good deliberation, defined by the
OECD and should be
taken into account when organizing citizens’ Panels on national and regional level.
1) Purpose
The Panels must have a clear purpose and goal as “
the objective should be outlined as a clear task
and is linked to a defined public issue. It is phrased neutrally as a question in plain language”. The role of
the citizens and their amount of influence must be clear. Reference should be made to the overal process
of the Conference on the Future of Europe. Citizens’ Panels should focus on an adequate number of topics.
The recommendations will be very concrete when the citizens discuss only a few topics. The depth of the
discussions decreases with the number of topics addressed. The Platform of the Conference on the Future
of Europe offers topic suggestions, but of course the Member States are free to set their own priorities and
choose every other topic related to the European Union. Concretely, the purpose of the Panels is to provide
collective recommendations for the future of Europe.
2) Responsiveness
“
There should be influence on public decisions”. The three European institutions committed to
respond to participants’ recommendations in the
Joint Declaration. In this perspective, national
dissemination and coordination measures that could ensure the uptake and visibility of (national) results
towards the online Platform will contribute to enhance the responsiveness and the embeddedness of the
local/national actions into the wider process of the CoFoE. This holds true especially given the potential
overlap of similar discussions unfolding on the one side at local/national level, and on the other side at EU
level.
3) Transparency
“
The deliberative process should be announced publicly before it begins. The process design and
all materials [...] should be available to the public in a timely manner. [...] The funding source should be
disclosed”. The Platform of the CoFoE is the central point to ensure this transparency. All contributions
can and should be published on the digital Platform
https://futureu.europa.eu/ which gathers all input for
the European citizens’ Panels and the Plenary of the Conference. The national citizens’ Panels give input
into the debate with suggestions for topics and questions for the European citizens’ Panels and the Plenary,
and can give national notions and recommendations, which will lead into European recommendations.
Through an ongoing mapping of topics and suggestions on the digital Platform, the participants can follow-
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
83 / 121
up on their inputs at all times. In addition to the Platform, the national states should use existing
institutionalized structures to send the results of the citizens' Panels directly to the European institutions.
4) Inclusiveness
“
Inclusion should be achieved by considering how to involve under-represented groups”, especially
if they are specifically affected by recommendations. “
Participation should also be encouraged and
supported through remuneration, expenses and/or providing or paying for childcare and eldercare” as well
as providing necessary support and assistance. This applies to both, face-to-face events and online events.
According to the european citizens’ Panels, an over-representation of young people or other kinds of public
could be searched. A particular attention will be given to have an empathic facilitation of the Panels, with
skilled facilitators.
5) Representativeness
“
The participants should be a microcosm of the general public. This is achieved through random
sampling” representing different geographic origins, gender, age, socioeconomic backgrounds and levels
of education in the respective country / region, as also stated in the
Joint Declaration as objective for the
national citizens’ Panels. “
Everyone should have an equal opportunity to be selected as participants”. The
number of the participants should be between 50 and 200 citizens, depending on the number of inhabitants
of the country or region. Efforts should be made to especially reach those, who normally do not take part
in public debates or political discussions, e.g. by choosing settings and places with easy access.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
84 / 121
The added-value of national initiatives is undoubtedly to be found in the organisation of on-site
citizens Panels, when possible. In online debates the need for more breaks (every 1 ½ -2 hours) should be
taken into account. Online sessions can be split up into multiple sessions, e.g. four hours each on different
days.
6) Information
The participants must receive comprehensive and balanced information on the fundamentals of the
topic to be discussed in order to enable collective reflection. There should be clear procedures in place to
ensure that the knowledge provided to citizens is adequate and balanced. The principle of expertise and
counter-expertise should be applied. According to this, citizens should have the opportunity to choose what
specific topics they want to focus on.
7) Group deliberation
“Participants should be able to find common ground to underpin their collective recommendations
to the public authority. This entails careful and active listening, weighing and considering multiple
perspectives, every participant having an opportunity to speak, a mix of formats that alternate between
small group and Plenary discussions and activities, and skilled facilitation”. Organizers should plan to
have
facilitated discussions in plenum and in smaller subgroups with a maximum of 10 persons per table.
The subgroups discuss and formulate recommendations that are later voted on by the Plenary assembly.
The facilitation must be
neutral and skil ed.
8) Time
“
Deliberation requires adequate time for participants to learn, weigh the evidence, and develop
informed recommendations, due to the complexity of most policy problems”.
At least 4 to 6 meeting days
(e.g. three weekends) should be planned, when addressing complex topics in one nationwide deliberation
process. Alternatively, several decentralised citizens' Panels can take place across the country, using the
same method, so that the results can be compared and merged.
9) Integrity
“
The process should be run by an arm's length co-ordinating team different from the commissioning
public authority. The final call regarding process decisions should be with the arm's length co-ordinators
rather than the commissioning authorities. Depending on the context, there should be oversight by an
advisory or monitoring board with representatives of different viewpoints”.
10) Privacy
It must be ensured that the discussions take place in a protected atmosphere and that only agreed
information is published. “
There should be respect for participants’ privacy to protect them from undesired
media attention and harassment, as well as to preserve participants’ independence, ensuring they are not
bribed or lobbied by interest groups or activists”.
11) Evaluation
“
There should be an anonymous evaluation by the participants to assess the process based on
objective criteria (e.g. on quantity and diversity of information provided, amount of time devoted to
learning, independence of facilitation).
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
85 / 121
Annex 8 - Recommendations on citizens’ participation in the Plenary
Official framing
The
Joint Declaration mentions:
-
The presence of citizens as a main component of the Plenary:
“The Conference Plenary will meet at least every six months and be composed of
representatives from the European Parliament, the Council and the European Commission,
as well as representatives from all national Parliaments, on an equal footing and citizens. The
Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee, the social partners, and
civil society will also be represented”.
-
The Panels will provide input to the Plenary formulating recommendations:
“The Panels should take on board contributions gathered in the framework of the Conference
providing input to the Conference Plenary by formulating a set of recommendations for the
Union to follow-up on”.
-
The Plenary will debate the recommendations from the Panels:
“A Conference Plenary will ensure that the recommendations from the national and European
citizens’ Panels, grouped by themes, are debated without a predetermined outcome and
without limiting the scope to predefined policy areas”.
Maximising Panels / Plenary interactions
Past experiences of interaction between citizens’ Panels and decision makers have proven to be fruitful
when they enter into interactions and an iterative process. Such a process will benefit the decision makers,
who will find a way to integrate the dialogue with citizens into their own process, as well to the citizens
who will realise the complexity of the decision making.
Citizens’ Panels cannot work in silos: interactions between citizens and decision makers (in this case other
Plenary members) will increase the added value of the Panels, as it will allow to clarify the propositions,
and to organise a good “transfer” from the citizens to the decision makers and vice-versa. This requires
creating opportunities for those interactions.
In each session, 8 (or 12) citizens of each Panel will be randomly selected amongst volunteers to attend the
Plenary. Four (4) drawings will be organised (W-M under 25 y.o. W-M above 25 y.o.). They will receive
specific support to present “intermediate” outputs to the Plenary and they will make a feedback from their
experience in the Plenary at the beginning of the next session of the Panel to other citizens.
One transmission session will be organised between the 8 “past” citizens and the 8 “next” citizens during
each session.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
86 / 121
The rotation of citizens will avoid to give a premium to the few citizens that could be fully available for
extra session because of their social status (retired persons, wealthy persons); it will support the inclusivity
of the process, allowing citizens to be part of the Plenary (even if they have limited time to engage in the
Plenary). It will also increase the number of citizens having had that experience, and this will avoid having
a “starification” process of some happy few that would implicitly become the representative of the others
(while there is no democratic process for that kind of role).
Before the Plenary participation, we propose that the citizens coming from the 4 Panels will meet to prepare
their interaction with the Plenary. A debriefing session will be organised as well. A Support Team will
provide support to the citizens so that they feel welcome and at ease in the Plenary. A few rules will be
proposed in order to frame their interactions with the Plenary, to make them feel comfortable in being the
special envoys from their Panels.
A continuous interaction of the Panels with the Plenary is recommended, as well as the commitment of
Plenary members towards the Panels, in order to fuel the Panels with direct feedback. The final session
where the final propositions of the Plenary will have a specific role, to allow citizens’ Panel to express their
reaction on the propositions as they will be conveyed to the institutions by the executive board.
Citizens’ role in the Plenary
Position
The weight of the citizens’ views in the process of the Plenary is a component of the extent to which a
common ground can be reached between the five/six components of the Plenary, in the spirit of the Joint
Declaration.
A weak position given to the citizens may create important gaps between the decisions taken in the Panels
and those taken in the Plenary and would also be a signal contradicting the orientation of the joint
agreement.
The citizens’ presence in the Plenary can be complemented by a citizens’ Panel intersessional work that
will result in the gathering of all results from national Panels’ and the online Platform to guarantee the
convergence of the citizens contributions, and when there will be divergence, it will be properly
documented and commented: contributions from the Platform and from Panels do not have the same value.
Mandate
The citizens who will be present in the Plenary will receive a mandate, of the same nature of the mandate
given to the other members of the Plenary, with the specificities linked to their status.
Agenda setting and shared evolution
One option that we recommend consist of batches of the 4 Panels sessions with results shared with the
Plenary, before having the next batch fed by the feedback of the Plenary. This process will have the
following benefits:
- The Panels will benefit from feedbacks from the Plenary at the following session;
- The Plenary will evolve in parallel with the citizens’ Panels: the first batch will share visions on
the future of Europe, the next one will generate the fields for changes, and the last one, practical
recommendations. Following the four Panels, will allow the Plenary to define its agenda in full
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
87 / 121
cohesion with the production of the Panels; this would generate the alignment proposed in the Joint
Declaration;
- The time given to each Panel would be de facto extended, this would have two immediate benefits:
on the one side, it would allow the citizens to have more time to prepare their position during
intersessional time, interacting with their local environment; on the other side, this would guarantee
that the content of the Platform including the feedback from self-organised events will be taken
into account by the Panels during the whole period of activity of the CoFoE.
- This organisation would avoid giving a fragmented vision of the citizens’ propositions, which
would de facto reduce the power of the citizens’ propositions into the Plenary and increase
considerably the room for manoeuvre inside the Plenary: fragmentation will increase the option in
the menu, and at the same time will reduce the consideration given to the deep deliberation process
done by the four citizens’ Panels.
Members of the Plenary in the Panels
We propose that a limited number of participants to the Plenary attend each session of the Panels, in a
position of observer. It will allow them to have a good understanding of the process of deliberation, and to
report to their peers the result of their experience with the citizens.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
88 / 121
Annex 9 - Multilingual Digital Platform’s functionalities
1. Access modes to the Platform
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
89 / 121
2. Citizen’s path through the Platform
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
90 / 121
3. Panelists’ path through the Platform
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
91 / 121
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
92 / 121
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
93 / 121
4. Facilitator’s path through the Platform
5. Expert’s path through the Platform
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
94 / 121
6. Researcher’s path through the Platform
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
95 / 121
Annex 10 - Visual representation of the Citizens’ Panels process
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
96 / 121
6.2 Draft documents for next milestones
Annex 11 - Guide for facilitation (plan)
We will provide a guide for facilitation in 2 parts
A common part to all the Panels
a- Presentation of the citizens Panels of the CoFoE: general presentation of the CoFoE,
objectives of the Panels, timeline, topics, key principles, recruitment and composition
b- Who’s who of the Panels (organigram, contacts, etc.)
c- Description of the general design of the Panels: sessions, intersessions, subgroups multi-
languages,
d- Role of the facilitator and attitude to keep during the discussions
e- Guide of conduct or charter
f- Tips: how to be a good facilitator
g- Focus on the impacts of multi-languages and multicultural contexts on the facilitation
h- Focus on one-line deliberation / focus on off-line deliberation
i- Tools and additional resources: links to the Mook, loop mail and Telegram, links to Drive,
etc.
A specific part, different for each Panel
a) The topic of the Panel: stakes, questions asked to citizens, information materials
b) The roll out of the sessions (more or less detailed), at least the roll-out of the first session
c) The contacts of the staff of the Panel
d) Organizational information
Nota bene: the detailed roll out of each session can’t be made at this stage. The logical of the session will
be define (cf. WP 2.2), but the final roll-out must be adapted following the “real life” of the precedent
session.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
97 / 121
Annex 12a - Example of the invitation letter to citizens
Dear European Citizen,
You have accepted to take part in the Citizens’ Panel of the Conference on the future of Europe, thus
agreeing to take part in the building of a more resilient Europe in the years to come.
We warmly thank you for joining us on this new journey and we hope to meet you soon, hopefully face-
to-face.
The current crisis which we are living in, as the present challenges that we faced in the past and we will
in the future have shown us the importance of having a global and by-all-accepted response.
The Conference on the future of Europe launched jointly on a common understanding by the three
institutions of the European Union will aim at rethinking the Europe we want in the world we live in. It
will open a new space for debate with citizens from all the 27 countries to address Europe’s challenges
and priorities.
On [dates], we invite you in [place] to deliberate and to give recommendations for the future of Europe.
As part of a cohort of 800 European citizens chosen by sortition, you will bring the voice of the 450
millions of Europeans, being the relay between them and the institutions.
What interests us is your experience as citizens, your opinions, no matter whether they are against or in
favor of the EU, with the conditions they are augmented and let the other people react.
Just as the founders of the European Union aimed for a peaceful Europe in the aftermath of the Second
World War, it is now a matter of clarifying which major challenges the European project must respond
to today, and which decisions to take that will be remembered by future generations.
With the time you will devote to this citizens' conference, you are helping to shape the future of the
European Union.
We hereby jointly commit to listen to Europeans and to follow up on the recommendations made by this
Conference, in full respect of our competences and the subsidiarity and proportionality principles
enshrined in the European Treaties.
Signature of the 3 presidents of the institutions:
For the European Parliament For the Council For the European Commission
David Sassoli António Costa Ursula von der Leyen
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
98 / 121
Annex 12b - Example of a Mission Statement
Facing the tensions of democratic governance, the geopolitical instabilities, and the socioeconomic
turmoil of the health crisis brought by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Europe of today and tomorrow is
more than ever in need for a collective response and path. If Europe’s foundations were laid with the
objective to secure peace and prosperity in the post-war era, the current crises call for a comprehensive
response that addresses environmental concerns, inequalities and solidarity, sustainable innovation and
economy, and the fostering of democratic principles in Europe and in the world. If the context prompts
to engage citizens in the democratic process of European actions, this is also rooted in the firm belief that
the cornerstones of the European democratic governance and its resilience are to be found in enhanced
and genuine dialogue, inviting European citizens in the shaping of the future of European policies and
actions.
The European governance has taken stock of the promising turn that past citizens consultations on Europe
have shown. Launching discussions that are relevant to citizens and allowing them to make their voice
heard cannot be achieved solely by polls and distant consultations yielding binary reflections that can
easily derive from the ethical mandate of citizens’ consultations. The need for more dialogue and debate
is to be achieved through direct participation, in adapted formats for debate, where citizens are invited to
develop their viewpoints and recommendations, to interact with their counterparts and give their consent
on fully developed arguments, in an open and inclusive space of direct dialogue. The Conference on the
Future of Europe bears the promises of this renewed approach inviting citizens to express themselves
both on Europe’s challenges and priorities, opening up the representative decision-making process to
direct contributions reflecting the diversity of European citizenship. This responsibility is fully endorsed
by the governing bodies that will provide the space for dialogue and allow European citizens, in their
socio-demographic diversity, and diversity of opinions to engage in a dialogue that will be anchored in
the reflection on disagreement, obstacles, and mutual understanding, avoiding fast agreement or
consensual positions.
The Conference on the Future of Europe will be centered around citizens’ Panels, which will be the
cornerstone of this interaction, the place where citizens will have the opportunity to fully develop their
views, in a bottom-up exercise that reflects all principles and shared values that Europe embraces in terms
of diversity, ensuring a space for sound debate in a transparent and responsive process. These European
citizens’ Panels are a unique democratic experiment in scale and method, and seek to collect diverse
inputs, in order to come closer to the principles of participatory democracy. European citizens across the
EU-27 member states will be randomly selected in a fully transparent way and in accordance with
diversified socio-demographic and opinion criteria and will be invited to take part to this unique
opportunity to make their voice be heard, around five Panels, each on a key topic shaping the future of
European policies and actions. Selected citizens will be invited to participate in five separate dialogue
sessions during a six-months period, for a few hours of constructive interactions with other citizens and
in small groups, around a table of open and respectful dialogue. Considered as the most promising form
of democratic participation, dialogue will be the pillar of the Conference on the Future of Europe,
materialized with these citizens Panels that will seek commonalities but also and foremost disagreement
and options, as the prerequisite of an ethical and responsible approach to citizens’ involvement.
Further to this, half of these citizens will be invited to participate in the Plenary of the Conference on the
Future of Europe, which will form the echo of these deliberative moments. The direct representation of
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
99 / 121
the citizens’ Panels into the Plenary will ensure the transparent political endorsement and use of the
citizens’ participation in the Plenary’ discussions, thus ensuring the effective pivotal role of citizens’
contributions to the European decision-making process, as the anteroom of negotiations. Having the
citizens’ Panels at the core of the political process of the Conference on the Future of Europe is not only
a democratic innovation but also and foremost the safeguard of the added value of this initiative and the
promise for a new momentum in the aspiration to strengthen the legitimacy of the European institutions.
In addition to the Plenary of the Conference on the Future of Europe, a second echo of the citizens’ Panels
will be achieved thanks to a multilingual online Platform serving to provide wide dissemination and
expand the participation of selected citizens with those of potentially every citizen of the European Union.
In this Conference, the space of citizen’s dialogue will receive the legitimacy and attention that many
participatory processes fail to address, and this will be ensured, on the one side, by the direct and open
connection to the political process of consensus-forming and translation into policymaking and, on the
other side, through the online public Platform embracing all 448 million people. In this ethical mandate
towards a constructive dialogue with citizens, the overall process will rely on active multipliers of the
deliberative moments, thus securing citizens’ voice is reflected up to the political translation of these
contributions.
In line with the very foundations of the European Union over seventy years ago, the contemporary
challenges of the EU require a renewed democratic pact that necessarily tends towards genuine dialogue,
by, with and for citizens. With a view to honoring the historic legacy of ancient Athenian democracy and
strengthening the historic core values of the European Union, the Conference on the Future of Europe
brings long-awaited responses to the acute longing for openness and dialogue with citizens at the core of
the process, bringing their involvement closer to the decision-making process. Mechanisms and resources
have been carefully implemented to offer this chance for an unmatched level of citizens’ dialogue in the
most promising manner, inviting every European citizen to have a say on all topics and key areas of
action, where citizens are not only participants but the first and final actor of the governing process.
Addressing modern challenges and the future of Europe can be achieved in a responsible and responsive
dialogue, at the service of the European population in its formidable diversity and creativity that has so
far led our continent to worldwide positive influence and inspiration.
Signature of the 3 presidents of the institutions:
For the European Parliament For the Council For the European Commission
David Sassoli António Costa Ursula von der Leyen
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
100 / 121
Annex 13 – Preparing a FAQ for citizens
Example of a FAQ list about the conference:
-
What is the Conference on the Future of Europe?
-
Why does it start now?
-
Who launched it?
-
Which topic will be discussed?
-
How long will it last?
-
What will be the outcome of this process?
-
Who are the different actors and what is their role?
-
How are the participants selected?
-
How to ensure the whole process is independent and valuable?
Example of a FAQ list about the Panels:
-
Why am I selected? (How are the participants selected?)
-
What is my role as participants?
-
How much time will it take?
-
Am I obliged to attend all the sessions?
-
Do I get paid for attending?
-
How can I explain this to my employers/family?
-
Where will I stay during the Panels?
-
What are the rules to be applicable regarding COVID-19?
-
Do I need to work between the sessions?
-
How can I participate if I don't speak English?
-
I don’t know anything about Europe or about the topic? How could I help here?
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
101 / 121
Annex 14 - COVID-19 protocol for offline dialogues
1. First observations:
The level of virus circulation differs from one region to another, so each situation is different and has to
be dealt with accordingly.
We need to be pragmatic. Distancing is the key point. When it cannot be
achieved, additional measures are required to reduce the risk of contamination.
To ensure that the protective response is proportionate to a given situation, apply the general guideline
that when protective measures are in place,
the situation should present no greater risk than that in
a public transport or school setting.
This crisis provides the opportunity to test out new tools to reach a more diverse audience and to enable
different means of expression. In participatory approaches, one main goal is to re-establish equality
between decision-makers and the public – whoever they are – in terms of information and participation.
The current context is marked by the economic and social impacts of the crisis, compounding the
vulnerability of the people furthest removed from decision-making processes.
These impacts require
us to further strengthen the procedures for mobilizing and including the most vulnerable groups
and those furthest removed from public decision-making.
2. Core principles
Information:
-
Post safety instructions and information on social distancing and preventive measures at
strategic points so that they can be seen by everyone involved.
-
Remind the participants about the safety and social distancing measures orally on a regular
basis (each time they return to the room, for example).
-
Inform participants about safety advice such as hand-washing: hand sanitizers are not a
substitute for washing with soap and water when hands have been potentially soiled by
biological fluids. Forced-air hand dryers and fabric hand towels are not recommended.
-
Provide information on and clearly organize the entrance and exit of the venue in
compliance with the rules on social distancing (floor markings, Plexiglas between participants
and technical staff, staggering of entry and exit times, etc.).
-
It is essential to provide participants and professionals with al the information they need
beforehand so that they are aware of the measures applied to welcome them in completely
safe health conditions. A ‘Good Practice Guide’ can be produced, then shared and signed.
-
Inform people that the list of attendees may be used to contact people at the meeting later
on if we find out that a participant has tested positive to the virus within 14 days of the event;
ask for their agreement when they sign the list (a box to be ticked next to their signature:
‘I
agree to receive information subsequent to the meeting’ and another ‘I agree to receive
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
102 / 121
information on other initiatives related to the subject and purpose of this meeting’).
Distancing:
- Physical distancing
between participants (1-1.5 meters distance depending on lockdown
levels), except for people who live together. We therefore need to allow 4m² per person. Avoid
seating people face-to-face or otherwise use a Plexiglas partition.
-
Respect the rules of physical distancing when fil ing and vacating the venue (row by row,
table by table, numbers from 1 to 10, etc.) and establish a path to prevent people from
intersecting when they move around. Wherever possible, stagger the participants’ arrival.
- Physical distance
between participants and facilitators, by adapting layout appropriately
(space between the stage and the rest of the room/use of video and screen/use of a sound
system – one microphone for one person – to be heard from afar, etc.).
- In small spaces (bathrooms, for example),
the number of people must be restricted to the
number of stalls/urinals. Close every other urinal if there is less than one meter between them.
Participants are asked to take it in turns to go the bathroom wherever possible.
Protection:
-
Only admit healthy people (anyone with potential symptoms must be refused access).
Depending on the level of the virus outbreak, more systematic measures may be taken (taking
people’s temperature, etc.).
-
Wearing of masks: depending on the level of the virus outbreak, it may or may not be
compulsory for participants aged over 12 to wear masks. Paper or fabric masks must be
available for each participant. Alternatively, the participation may be notified to come with
their own mask. Facilitators will always wear a mask.
-
Ventilation: allow time to air the room between sessions (naturally if possible, otherwise
using a ventilation system with the filters changed regularly); air the room every three hours
if the meeting lasts longer than that.
-
Several times a day, disinfect any surfaces that are frequently touched: the handles of
doors that cannot be left open (fire doors, toilets, etc.), stair rails, elevator buttons, hand
sanitizer dispensers, toilet flushes, etc.
-
Hand hygiene: everyone should be able to wash their hand (water, liquid soap, disposable
paper) at least on arrival in the building, before the start and at the end of the session, before
and at the end of each meal, and whenever hands may have been soiled by biological fluids.
-
Safely manage the regular disposal of waste (single-use tissues, disposable masks, and
paper towels). A dedicated waste container should be provided.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
103 / 121
-
Hand sanitizer: this must be available at all entrances to the premises and at strategic points
(corridors, toilets, etc.).
-
Clean all shared equipment each day, before and after each use. As far as possible, provide
new equipment for each person for all sessions (one or two pencils per person, their own
post-it notes, individual work materials, etc.). Whenever possible, ask each participant to
come with their own small supplies.
credits: Jess Grinneiser
Organization:
-
Train staff on the new health rules.
-
As far as possible, avoid the collective use of smal equipment (Post-it notes, sheets of paper,
etc.) and prefer surfaces that can be cleaned regularly (whiteboard cleaned regularly with a
cleaning solution).
-
Designate a single person to complete the documents for a group of people (e.g. facilitators
could be the only ones to touch the group work materials; a facilitator could be the only one to
be able to write up the feedback on a flipchart). Individual notes may be taken and may be
collected as long as they are not passed around by several participants.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
104 / 121
-
Organize space to prevent people from different households from coming together:
o
No intermission/break unless specially adapted (e.g. breaks held in several places, at
different times depending on the tables, fixed break with rules for access to the bar,
individualized catering service – one plate per person, prepared by a
caterer/service/restaurant applying the appropriate hygiene rules. Wherever possible,
use disposable cutlery, one bottle of water per person and a – disposable – individual
glass, etc.).
o
Removal of cloakrooms and open bars. Distribution of products and food packaged
by one or two people wearing gloves (not by the participants themselves).
o
Floor marking at strategic points (queue at the entrance, toilets, etc.) to visualize the
distance.
o
Organize space and give entry/exit instructions to make sure people do not intersect
(create a path from the entrance into the meeting space and to the exit, orderly exit at
the end of the meeting by table or by row, for example).
-
It is recommended that as many doors as possible are kept open to avoid people touching
the handles.
- Whenever possible,
choose a space with parking nearby so that participants can reach the
venue by car, and do not need to use public transport.
Involvement:
-
Do not cut down participation time. The timetables for participatory processes must account
for the organizational constraints and difficulties caused by the COVID-19 epidemic. If
timetables are shortened too much or if there are constraints on participation, especially in the
current context, it could be that the public are not informed or able to participate properly.
-
Be extra careful about inclusion in the consultation processes.
-
Allow for good-quality discussion periods using new forms of physical and non-physical
dialogue. The CNDP (national commission for public debate) expressly recommends the
following arrangements when holding public debates:
-
Use video conferencing tools to hold online conversations (Teams, Skype, Zoom, etc.) when
face-to-face gatherings are not possible: these tools can be used to bring together several hundred
people and recreate debate conditions using virtual rooms.
o
N.B. using online consultations marginalizes people living in ‘white areas’ with poor
internet coverage and those unused to participatory Platforms. They should be used
discerningly.
o
Allow time during which participants can express themselves and react to the ideas
shared: using virtual rooms of fewer than eight people or using the ‘chat’ function in
these tools, for example.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
105 / 121
link to page 106
o
Preparation is even more important to make sure the event runs smoothly and
everyone can take part: adapted questions, information prior to or during the event with
screen sharing, a sufficient number of facilitators, etc. The online conversation space
can also be used to express ideas in writing, or even to speak to your virtual neighbor.
o
In the event of recording or subsequent use of the video from these video conferences,
image rights forms must be signed by all participants, in accordance with
GDPR regulati
ons19.
o
Access to these meetings must be restricted: whenever possible, it is recommended to
request a password for access to a meeting or to set up a waiting room system, or entry
questionnaire, etc.
-
Reflect on, adapt and adjust mobilization tools:
o Make more use of local stakeholders, especially associations, to reach out to people
who would not have access to information or could be in a vulnerable health or social
situation.
19https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-
gdpr/
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
106 / 121
Annex 15 - How to run a dialogue online
How to run a dialogue online
1. Adapting the Design to an online format
This note provides some insights on how to adapt the format
WHILE respecting some minimal standards.
The suggested method is to take the perspective of a participant and then of a group and to go through the
following checklist. This procedure guarantees that a sound online dialogue can be set up, while respecting
some basic standards. The following table provides a few examples, while leaving room for adaptation.
Questions / Items
Comments
Check
As a participant I interact with
at least 5 other participants
during the process
As a participant I have
discussions in a breakout room
with a facilitator
As participants I am not online
more than 4,5 hours in one go
We need every participant to go through
As a participant I go through
all these sessions because they are the
key: Onboard them in the process (1&2),
SESSION 1 AND 2 AND 8
allow them to address the broader picture
AND 9
(8) and measure the deliberation effect of
the process (9).
If you are worried that all sessions for all
As a participant I go through
participants are too demanding, you can
SESSION 3 AND/OR 4/5
split the group for the topical sessions.
AND/OR 6A/7 AND/OR 6B
Each participant then only goes through
one or two topical sessions.
As a group we have at least 50 This is key to ensure enough quantity of
participants in each session (so quantitative AND qualitative data.
at least 50 individual
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
107 / 121
questionnaires and 8-10 group
worksheets)
This means that if you split the group and
participants go through only one or two
topic sessions, you need more
participants in the whole group.
Many scenarios and designs are possible, respecting those minimum standards. Here are a few examples of
design and formats, according to the respective constraints:
Two days, two topics sessions, with two different groups (50 each)
Design
Timing
Data
Duration
Two days
Two sessions each day with lunch
break of one hour
Participants
Two groups of 50 participants
100 participants
Different on Day one and two
Program Day
Session 1 / Session 2
80’
50 questionnaires
one
Break 10 minutes
90’
Session 3
180’
50 questionnaires
Lunch break
-----
Session 4 / 5
45’
50 questionnaires
Break 10 minutes
95’
Session 8
145’
50 questionnaires
Session 9
165’
50 questionnaires
Program Day
Session 1 / Session 2
80’
+50 questionnaires = 100
two
Break 10 minutes
90’
Session 6A
115’
50 questionnaires
Lunch break
-----
Session 7
60’
50 questionnaires
Break 10 minutes
70’
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
108 / 121
Session 8
120’
+50 questionnaires = 100
Session 9
140’
+50 questionnaires = 100
One shorter day, 3 different groups (50 each)
Design
Timing
Data
Duration
One day
Participants
One group of 150 participants
150 participants
Common sessions 1, 2, 8, 9
Split for topic sessions
Program group Session 1 / Session 2
80’
50 questionnaires
1
Break 10 minutes
90’
Session 3
185’
50 questionnaires
Lunch break
-----
Session 8
50’
50 questionnaires
Session 9
20’
50 questionnaires
Program group Session 1 / Session 2
80’
+50 questionnaires (100)
2
Break 10 minutes
90’
Session 4/5
185’
50 questionnaires
Lunch break
-----
Session 8
50’
+50 questionnaires (100)
Session 9
20’
+50 questionnaires (100)
Program group Session 1 / Session 2
80’
+50 questionnaires (150)
3
Break 10 minutes
90’
Session 6A/7 or 6B
185’
50 questionnaires
Lunch break
-----
Session 8
50’
+50 questionnaires (150)
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
109 / 121
Session 9
20’
+50 questionnaires (150)
One day, two topic sessions, 3 different groups (50 each)
Design
Timing
Data
Duration
One day
Participants
One group of 100 participants
100 participants
Common sessions 1, 2, 3, 8, 9
Split for topic sessions ⅘ and 6A/7
or 6B
Program group Session 1 / Session 2
80’
50 questionnaires
1
Break 10 minutes
90’
Session 3
185’
50 questionnaires
Lunch break
-----
Session ⅘
95’
50 questionnaires
Session 8
145’
50 questionnaires
Session 9
165’
50 questionnaires
Program group Session 1 / Session 2
80’
+50 questionnaires (100)
2
Break 10 minutes
90’
Session 3
185’
+50 questionnaires (100)
Lunch break
-----
Session 6A/7 or 6B
95’
50 questionnaires
Session 8
145’
+50 questionnaires (100)
Session 9
165’
+50 questionnaires (100)
Program group Session 1 / Session 2
80’
+50 questionnaires (150)
3
Break 10 minutes
90’
Session ⅘
185’
50 questionnaires
Lunch break
-----
Session 6A/7 or 6B
50’
+50 questionnaires (150)
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
110 / 121
Session 8
20’
+50 questionnaires (150)
Session 9
In any case, please drop us a line when you have chosen a format so we can give feedback.
2. Choosing a tool
There are alternatives to Zoom if your prefer another tool, for instance:
●
GoogleMeet
●
Skype Business
●
Teams
●
BlueJeans ● Big blue button
3. Setting up the meeting
Mobile or computer?
We heavily advise the participants to use a computer rather than the mobile to interact on zoom. The chat,
raise-a-hand function and shared screen are indeed only available from a computer and it is easier to get
interaction with other participants and the animation team.
Make a test before the official session starts
To be sure that people understand how Zoom is working and to avoid wasting time on the dialogue day,
don’t hesitate to organize a test beforehand to let the participants try the technicalities and functionalities
of the Platform (mute/unmute, open/close camera,…).
Also open the room 30 minutes before starting. It will allow participants to get used to the system.
4. Before the session: Make everyone aware of its role
For the citizens
Send
the participants an email a few days before the session to inform them about the procedure and the
use of Zoom. The email explains how to get access to the Platform (mobile and computer) and shows with
screenshots the basic controls of zoom participants need: How to mute/unmute, activate/deactivate the
camera, raise a hand to speak and how to speak on the chat. It is also a first way to explain to the participants
how you want them to participate in the respect of the other participants.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
111 / 121
There is also an option to deliver a
password for the participants to enter the meeting, to enhance security.
For the Moderation and facilitation team
A good coordination between all the members is needed to ensure a good process. The team is composed
of:
- The
main moderator is in charge of guiding the group during the deliberation in Plenary. He/she
presents the session, launches the movie, goes forward with the slides of the storyboard, etc. The
facilitators follow the instructions given by the main moderator in Plenary and reformulate them in the
breakout rooms. We advise the main moderator to check the breakout rooms when the deliberation is
going on.
- The
host is the “master” of the session. He/she can send participants to breakout rooms, change the
names of participants, etc. This person cannot be the main moderator or a facilitator, as he/she will be
leading the logistics of Zoom and has to stay in Plenary during the deliberation in breakout rooms.
When participants are in a breakout room, they can call (thanks to a specific button) the main moderator
to come to their breakout room if they need help.
- The
facilitators have to be granted/nominated co-host by the main moderator to gain control-settings
(as mute/unmute participants, rename them, change of breakout rooms,…). They are in charge of the
facilitation when in breakout rooms and have limited controls to ensure this (share screen, chat, etc.).
We strongly advise you to have two facilitators for each breakout room.
-
Support team. Two people that also have to be nominated co-host. Their role is to help participants
to manage the Zoom Platform and ensure that the dialogue can go on in the best way (unmute/mute
people, use of private conversation for technical problems, rename people). You can also ask this team
to fulfill different tasks: Responsible for technical issues, Follow-up of the chat, … We advise you to
share these people’s phone numbers in Plenary so that participants can call them if needed.
The use of an
informal backup channel like Telegram or WhatsApp only for the
moderators/facilitators/support team is a GREAT help to ensure a quick exchange of information and
questions and to coordinate.
In any case, the
rules for facilitation should be clear within the moderation team and between this team
and the participants.
You can for instance fix the rules on who can take the floor:
-
Ask the participants to only use the “raise a hand option”
-
Ask the participants to first express their idea in the chat
-
Having one moderator in vocal and one moderator in the chat that work hand in hand between the
two channels
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
112 / 121
5. When the session starts: ensure that everyone has access and is identified
The participants are welcomed by the facilitators once they enter the Platform. You can also use the
waiting
room option to “filter” all the participants and ensure they are correctly named or identified. Otherwise,
they will arrive on the Plenary.
As for a face-to-face dialogue, it is important to know
who is who and to
put a correct name to everyone.
But not everyone feels comfortable using Zoom and some of them don’t know how to change the name.
Here the moderators have to identify the participants and rename them to ensure everyone gets a name and
can be recognized by all. It is important to note that people using a computer can rename themselves, but
not the people using a phone. In any case –for the people using a computer- it is possible to communicate
with them thanks to the private conversation chat.
A
hotline (phone number is the most efficient) can also be made available for the participants who do not
succeed to enter the Platform.
As the online dialogue is gathering facilitators, citizens, researchers, press and steering committee, it is
possible to use a
specific nomination code so that everyone is aware of who is present and in which
capacity. For instance, you can have:
- For citizens: Name + first letter of surname
- facilitators: Name + ANIM
- Press: Name + MED (for Media)
For the
Group discussions, the facilitator can easily share his/her screen and put up the slides from the
Storyboard for every participant to see. The note-taker (in case you do not have 2 people, then the facilitator
or someone from the group you appoint beforehand) writes down the key aspects and results of the
discussion on the slide.
6. Using breakout rooms
For moderation team
Zoom gives the possibility to have a full-session (‘Plenary’) and breakout rooms (‘sub-session’).
The host
is the only one able to send the participants to the breakouts rooms and to bring them back. He/she
has to prepare the breakout rooms in advance (by noticing who is going to which rooms), during the Plenary
presentation.
The host has the
ability to send messages to all the participants during the sub-sessions. She/he also
has the ability to close the breakout rooms and bring everyone back to the full-session room (can be done
immediately or with a 60 second countdown).
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
113 / 121
As co-host, facilitators are free to change to one breakout room to another without being specifically
granted to do so. A good solution is to assign them in advance to the breakout room, based on the preparation
you did before the sessions. The settings of repartition in breakout rooms are registered once you modify
them: so you can settle them at the start of Plenary and when you want to go into break rooms, your
assignments are already there!
Another good idea is to
name the breakout rooms. Because once a participant disconnects and then
reconnects, he/she comes back in the main session, not his/her previous breakout rooms. By naming the
room, the participant knows where he was and it is easier to send him back to the breakout room he was in.
Breakout rooms can have a
fixed time so that after x minutes, participants will return automatically to the
main session. It is not always desirable and can be very frustrating: facilitators should take care of the time
and come to an end at the right moment.
For practical reasons, it is important to
have 2 facilitators (ideally one facilitator and one note taker) for a
breakout room composed of 5-8 people. The exchanges are then richer and the conversation is fluid while
everyone can be heard and notes could be taken.
During an online dialogue, facilitators have to be particularly proactive and must not hesitate to be directive.
You’ll find below tips for facilitation in breakout rooms.
For participants
The full-session still exists next to the breakout rooms. People who connect to the link zoom after the
creation of the breakout rooms will not arrive in one of these but in the full-session room. It is thus
needed
that the host stays in the full-session to dispatch the newcomers into the occurring breakout-rooms The
central moderator can use another device to still go through the breakout rooms while staying present on
the main session.
Note that once you create the breakout rooms in the breakout rooms’ launcher,
the composition of the
breakout rooms stay registered and unchanged until the end (even if you quit the breakout launcher). It
can be very helpful when you want to have an alternation between a Plenary session and breakout rooms
while keeping the same groups. In any case, you can re-divide the breakout room with another composition
7. Showing videos Downloading the videos
playing with VLC + subtitles file
8. Using the storyboard
Print out Storyboard (facilitator have it in front of them during the online dialogue)
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
114 / 121
Print out the storyboard and flip through each slide. Facilitators can take notes directly on the printed out
group worksheets. It allows you to focus on the group dynamic and not be typing all the time.
Storyboard Online
If the dialogue is online, share the link to the storyboard with your participants (decide ahead whether
participants should be able to edit the slides or only view/ comment). We advise the facilitator to take notes
in the storyboard in order for participants so see the progress and the result of their discussions.
Additionally, the facilitator can take notes on a sheet of paper.
NOTE: In either case, the one storyboard document should be provided to one facilitator, otherwise multiple
facilitators will work in one document. This means, per country there should be as many storyboard
documents as participant groups.
Miro Board
We have heard from some national partners that they will use the tool Miro
(miro.com) as a digital tool to
collaboratively work on the tasks. We would like to present this option to all partners and recommend it to
those who are looking for an online collaborative tool. Miro can be compared to a big piece of paper, where
everyone with access can write, draw, etc.
We will provide a simple Miro template on Friday, where we will insert images of the storyboard
presentation. This way, no text has to be copy and pasted, only images of the final translated storyboard
have to be inserted. We estimate this requires 45 minutes of your time. We will provide a brief tutorial. For
this option, creating one Miro account per country under the Free Plan is sufficient.
If the dialogue is face to face, position the screen in order for everyone to be able to see the Miro board.
We advise facilitators to take notes directly in the Miro board or on printed out worksheets from the
storyboard. Additionally, the facilitator can take notes on a sheet of paper.
If the dialogue is online, share the link to the Miro board with your participants (on the Free Plan, everyone
with access will be able to edit). We advise the facilitator to take notes in the storyboard in order for
participants to see the progress and the result of their discussions. Additionally, the facilitator can take notes
on a sheet of paper.
NOTE: All participant groups of one country work in the same Miro board in different parts of the board,
more precisely, on their dedicated slide decks. This means, in the one and only Miro board per country,
there are as many copies of the slide deck as participant groups.
Regarding the Miro board, everything will get clearer by Friday with the template we provide.
9. General recommendations
Do not disconnect: To avoid wasting time in renaming and to avoid technical issues, participants are asked
to not leave the Platform and to stay connected during the whole session, even during the breaks.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
115 / 121
Attention! As a co-host, you can disconnect participants to make them leave the session. Be aware that if
you use that function (for instance for a participant to restart Zoom), the participant will be excluded from
the zoom call and won’t be able to come back to the session.
Recording: Every host or co-host can record the session in the Plenary session. For the breakout-rooms, it
has to be done by the facilitator that is present during the whole sub-session! The recording depends on the
view of the facilitator, so if a facilitator is changing sub-groups, the recording will follow her/his view and
not the previous sub-group anymore. Note: there is no signal when the recording stops, so you have to be
aware of it and stop manually. Recording may stop due to a technical issue (disconnection or cloud memory
is full).
There is also the possibility to record th
e chat. The comments on the chat are valuable and an important
supplement to the video recording.
Reporting: It is possible to have reports of the meeting you had on your Zoom Profile (Account
Management > Reports). Reports give you information about the number of participants, the duration of
the session, the poll reports, and it can help you to get feedback from the session.
Manage your time: Going through an online Platform creates a lot of inconsistency in the dialogue, with
technical issues (with people arriving/leaving, problems with microphone, transition between different
rooms) but also with human bias (peoples do not follow instructions such as the “raise a hand” function,
people take a lot of time to present themselves/their advice) and the interaction can be less fluid.
Keep the energy: As the online dialogue could be energy-consuming and the attention can decrease during
the session, don’t hesitate to be creative to keep the attention vivid by putting music during the breaks, use
the poll, share the screen, use another Platform and so on (see below). We advise you to alternate Plenary
and breakout rooms and mix the groups once during the day.
10. How to keep attention alive: tools
Speaking rounds: as it is easier to have a passive behaviour during an online dialogue, we strongly advise
you to be very proactive and organise speaking rounds in your subgroup. You can do that by asking each
participant to comment.
Be inclusive: you might have participants on the phone. Try not to put them all in the same room. To make
sure they follow the deliberation, do not hesitate to read out loud the material you show, the notes you are
taking on the board, etc.
Poll: Zoom offers the possibility to make polls on its Platform. The poll has to be made in advance.
Unfortunately, the controls/ settings for the poll are limited and some issues may appear: all the co-hosts
can control the poll, when you leave the zoom-window, you can’t see the poll and as the central host, you
can’t “reactivate it”. Poll for now can be used as an ice-breaker but not as a decisive part of the process
(prefer other devices, e.g., mobile, specialized software).
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
116 / 121
Body language: Don’t hesitate to ask the participants to share their thoughts or answer to a question by
using body language rather than expressing themselves by words. You need for that to ask participants to
activate their camera. Again, do not hesitate to be direct, and explain why it is important that they see each
other.
To ensure the efficacy of the process, you need to have the participants with their camera on. It will create
a funny interactive time and let participants enjoy a moment without being surrounded by the sounds of
microphones.
Examples: do a yoga training or a physical warm up before starting the dialogue day or a session
Examples: ask the participants what is their feelings about a topic, about a sentence, about a
question by leveling their arms in front of the camera (arms/hands up means you’re
confident/ready/happy and arms/hands down means you’re fearing/not ready/not concerned
Examples: Ask the participants to rate something by giving a result with their fingers: 5 fingers if
you find something super great -0 if you find something bad
It can also be done by using a sheet of paper and a pen!
Summarize your day in one word that you write on
a sheet of paper
Localization: To see where people come from (especially for cross-border dialogues or in a big country),
you can us
e Padlet . It is a link that you need to share in the chat, people have to register and the website
will give you the places where the people are coming from. Don’t hesitate to share the map on your screen
so that everyone sees it. It can be used to show the diversity of the Panel.
Instant cloud of words of other graphics: You can us
e Menti to generate clouds of words. You share a
link where a question from your choice is asked and the answers of the participants will be generated in a
cloud of words. The website can be used to generate other graphics.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
117 / 121
3 words to qualify the start of the week
How old are you?
Online post-it and mindmap: you can also us
e Padlet to substitute the classic post-it with an electronic
post-it so as to be able to create a mind map.
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
118 / 121
To get the pros/contra within a debate: If you want to get an overview of the pros and contras of a
discussed topic, you can us
e Kialo.
Annex 16 - Charter with the citizens
The charter will specify the following points, written with daily words, translated in each language of the
European citizen.
About the process
- Context of the CoFoE
- Why now?
- Why through public consultations?
- Objectives of the CoFoE
- Overall structures and articulation between different stages
- Expected outputs
- Missions of the citizens/mandate
- Duration of the mission + timeline
- Different actors involved
- Governance
- Joint presidency
- Executive board
- Plenary
- A team at your disposal: secretariat, team facilitation, interpreters, staff, fact-checkers
- Experts
- Researchers and observers
- Media
About the participation
- Composition of the Panels and conditions to participate
- Procedure of recruitment
- Procedure of selection
- Recruitment and substitution in case of problem
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
119 / 121
- Short description of the method and rules for a good dialogue
- Guarantees/transparency
- Allowance / compensation
- COVID-19 provisions
About your rights as participants
- RGPD
- Right to balanced information materials
- Right to compensation and assistance before and during the deliberation
- Right to your image
- Right to communicate to media
About your obligations as participants
- Obligation to behave well during deliberations sanction in case of non-respect (to detail)
- Obligation to communicate properly to media
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
120 / 121
Annex 17 - Welcome pack
European bag will include:
Information Booklet will include:
● Fabric bag
Logistical information:
● Miniguide on practical information on the CoFoE
● Contact of the secretariat for the participants
● Notebook or white paper file to take note + pens
with the different contact point they have
● Miniguide about the city where the Panels take
● Organizational timeline of the session and
place
deadline for providing information (for travels,
● Miniguide about extra activities which happens
stay, certificates)
during the CoFoE, aside the Panels
● Procedure for booking and information they
● Mini Guides on anecdotes/explanation about the
need to deliver to secretariat
EU (personality, people, history, places)
● Procedure for travel and information they need
● Mini dictionary with few words in English so that
to deliver to secretariat
they can communicate with fellow participants
● Guide on access to online deliberation
● Water flask with logo
● Compensation and reimbursement
● Stickers
● Covid 19 protocol
● Map of Europe
● Plan of the venues and information on the city
=> To avoid criticism, all those goodies must be “made in
where Panels will take place
Europe” and ecological materials. The bag must not be to Process information:
filled with too much goodies
● Objectives and purpose of the conference
● Program of the conference and the sessions
● The different actors involved
● Summary of the charter
Open space:
● Some white pages to take notes
● Some network/contact pages where participants
can note the contacts of their fellows
CoFoE Citizens’ Panels
121 / 121
Document Outline