1. European Citizens‘ Consultations Workshop 1: Methodology An introduction into the main building blocs of the ECC process

2. 2 Overview over the ECC

3. 3 Agenda Setting Event: General Features First step of the ECC process: 200 citizens from all Member States were invited on 7/8 October 2006 to Brussels to set the agenda for the further process Objective: the citizens were asked to identify those topics they find most important for the European Union to focus on in the future, selecting those that have the greatest potential and relevance for the national debates Recruitment: 8 citizens from each Member State were selected randomly from all walks of life reflecting the diversity of the population The participants were divided into small discussion groups supported by facilitators, interpreters, and resource persons.

4. 4 Agenda Setting Event: Design Elements Bilingual tables: Accompanied by a table facilitator and an interpreter, the participants discussed the given topics  Results of the table discussions were recorded by the table facilitator using a laptop and sent to an editorial team  The editorial team incorporated the inputs into the ongoing development of the topics and produced an overview of the results Market place: open space event, where the participants could talk about the results of the table discussion and the information given by posters and speaker corners Pan-european conference: representatives from each table presented and discussed their results at a round table At the end of the first day, citizens selected the topics they found most important for a debate on the future of Europe. During the second day, the citizens worked on enriching the topics.

5. 5 Agenda Setting Event: Agenda

6. 6 Citizens‘ Juries: General features Function of the juries within the ECC: deepening of information and test for the national consultations Random selection of participants from the register (25 for each jury) Participants are freed of their duties and get paid for their work Experts give controversial information concerning the discussed topic Deliberations take place in small working groups of changing composition Results are published in a „Citizens‘ Report“

7. 7 Citizens‘ Juries: Agenda

8. 8 Citizens‘ Juries: Structure of the Working Units

9. 9 National Consultations: General features From February to March 2007, 27 national consultations in all EU- Member States on four weekends (5-10 simultaneous events per weekend) 30 to 200 randomly selected citizens per event discussing the three at the Agenda-Setting-Event selected topics Comparable results – the 27 national, i.e. “(Swedish, Estonian…) Citizens’ Perspectives on the Future of Europe” which were handed- over to citizens at the end of the weekend The format and structure of each national Citizens’ Perspective was the same with static and variable content to make the results comparable across countries:  introduction  citizens’ visions for each of the three topics and their definition of the EU’s role in achieving these visions  project description  demographic data on the participants  impressions, i.e. quotes and pictures (variable) Participation of high-ranking policy-makers and intense media coverage

10. 10 National Consultations: Design elements Each citizen was assigned to a group discussing mainly one of the three topics Each group was professionially facilitated; facilitator was supported by a co-facilitator (mainly note-taker) Results of discussion were recorded on moderation walls All groups followed the same agenda (vision drafting, EU-role) Groups rotated at serveral points to give feedback to other groups Different design for large-scale events (more than 60 participants) and small events Voting in larger events via electronic voting technology (TED)

11. 11 National Consultation: Agenda

12. 12 National Consultations: Pan-European Integration Events starting at the same time (taking into account different time zones) All events followed a common agenda Integration points: exchange of data and to keep the process in sync.  sharing of demographic data (on day 1)  sharing of interim results (drafts of the EU vision, impressions, quotes) in the morning of the second day  exchange of voting results from the confidence and feedback vote (in the afternoon of day 2). Live impressions from the other countries through Skype connection “Tour d’Europe”: Live exchange between countries Ambassadors or exchange students were invited to join the national consultations

13. 13 Synthesis Event Basic features 27 national reports as the basis for a European synthesis exercise on the 9th and 10th of May 2007 27 citizens (1 volunteer from each national event), accompanied by their respective national partners, worked on a pre-drafted synthesis report Synthesis report highlighted common ground and areas of divergence between the national outcomes. Citizens counter-checked their national results with the draft report and amended and edited as appropriate. Working language: English Result: “European Citizens’ Perspectives on the Future of Europe” Event followed by a press conference with Margot Wallström, Gérard Onesta, Jean-Luc Dehaene

14. 14 Synthesis Event: Input The draft synthesis report had been drafted, cross- and double- checked by a team of 8 members from different organisations inside the ECC coordination board Each statement of each national report was put down in an excel sheet and checked for similarities with or differences to all other reports. The result was a “matrix” containing all input and clustering similar input. The draft synthesis was structured according to these clusters and composed of the statements made at the national consultations. After each statement a bracket indicated which country panel supported the statement. A final cross-check of all reports guarantees that the main results of all national reports are part of the European Perspectives.

15. 15 Synthesis: Methodology Open space with a plenary area and three corners, each devoted to one of the three topics and equipped with  a laptop and a screen displaying the draft synthesis report  pin boards that featured the national results in both the original language and English as well as the draft synthesis report  a facilitator and a note-taker Each citizen received a copy of their national report, which they cross- checked with the draft synthesis report to determine  whether it included the main statements  whether the national consultation was mentioned in relation to the correct statement  whether the statement reflected what was said at the national consultation Amendments were made in cooperation with the facilitator and a note- taker who entered it – live on screen – into the draft synthesis. In case of doubt, the lead facilitator was consulted who discussed with the parties involved and mediated were appropriate.