The European Citizen’s Panel Initiative on the Roles of Rural Areas

Problems and Purpose 

 This initiative’s main objective is to solve some of the regional and supranational level issues generated from the lack of a standardised and general policy framework designed to facilitate growth in EU rural areas. It aims to mitigate the harmful effects which derive from this lack of rural policy implementation by analysing rural regional issues to bring forward a set of general claims and solutions. The initiative facilitates debate publique - or public debate - in preliminary as well as European level settings to lay out the problems rural citizens face to deliberate on and bring forward solutions for potential EU policy implementation. The lack of a fully-fledged ‘European identity’ has caused a multitude of problems within the EU where policy implementation is concerned; policies that would otherwise bridge the gap between regional and European level dilemmas are lacking (Eriksen and Fossum, 2000). By focusing solely on the regional identity, a non-homogenous view of implementation has been practised in individual EU member states, meaning that the general issues regarding rural life in the EU are not being identified. Thus, the lack of a European identity, or homogenised voice within the grassroots of rural policy implementation, means that policy makers lack the knowledge regarding general issues rural citizens face daily in life (Eriksen, 2006). 

This initiative attempts to solve this issue by identifying which problems are paramount in the lives of rural EU citizens. The initiative aims to exemplify the ways in which deliberative democratic procedures might establish a concrete pan-European set of legislative objectives regarding rural regions via public debate; the lack of a European rural identity and general EU rural policy framework has contributed to problems public debates tackle. Issues include: the need to strengthen opportunities for young people in rural areas, equal access to education for rural people, the lack of affordable housing and transport and the need to preserve a distinct rural identity. By identifying these issues throughout debate, outcomes can help policymakers and stakeholders at the European level facilitate the change rural citizens demand. This public debate, therefore, is fit for purpose as a deliberative process as it facilitates solutions to combat rural issues systematically.

Background, History and Context 

 Holding a debate is crucial for rural citizens - informed debate helps build consensus among the citizens weary of seeing their rural area decline. Facilitators help rural citizens engage in a debate that matters to them to point them in a direction for answers; at the supranational level, solutions brought forward via debate can help settle contextual issues surrounding the initiative. In the past 20 years at the time of the initiative, rural EU regions had seen great change and restructuring; agricultural sectors seemed to be diminishing, infrastructural developments were promised but never delivered and local farms were becoming fully mechanised, lacking the spirit of locality. Although policies had been implemented to tackle some local issues, no greater body of legislation had been able to tackle some of the more pressing generalised troubles underpinning the aims of this initiative, meaning that the overarching problems faced by multiple rural regions had been left unchecked. For example, rural people are faced with the economic concentration of businesses found within only towns and cities. Many had seen local businesses disappear entirely, leading to growing unemployment statistics in local areas, exacerbated by the large number of young people fleeing their rural villages to find more opportunities in urban locations. Moreover, a decline in population growth and stability have become significant issues in rural areas, especially in those where higher paying professions are moving location, facing youth and brain drain. Those living in rural areas felt like a change was needed - the debate publique helps to clear carve issues through deliberation, and provide a set of solutions for policymakers prioritised by citizens. Overall, it is clear that a history of underdevelopment and lack of suitable policy implementations have rendered local rural populations distraught.

Organising, Supporting and Funding Entities

 A multitude of private and public funding bodies were used to facilitate public debate at both levels, as well as multiple organisational and regulatory bodies. The total funding reached almost 1.6 million Euros. The European Commission acted as the primary organisational and regulatory body. In the absence of sufficient direct funding from the Commission itself, independent foundations helped the initiative and provided it with the majority of its funding, especially at the European level. Foundational funding was then complemented by the Commission and EU Committee of the Regions. Overall, more than 40 total partners were involved in organising or funding this pilot initiative, including (non) governmental bodies and other organisations. On many occasions, additional layers of EU bureaucracy were involved, especially at the EU level. Reflecting this at the regional level were more administrative layers of bureaucracy from local regulatory bodies. The combination of over 40 partners in both the governmental and the private sectors allowed for the European Citizens Panel to be made possible. The Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation and Foundation For Future Generations originally investigated the initiative to assess its feasibility in May 2006; they saw the Panel as a way to facilitate debate and find solutions for rural affairs. Officially starting on May 10th, 2006, over the next 2 years more organisations became involved to increase the scope of the project.

Participant Recruitment and Selection 

 Diversity amongst regional preliminary debates was desired, with the method of participant recruitment aiming to mirror those in rural areas. While there was “no aim at statistical representivity” (Final Report, 2007), the initiative used a random selection of participants in each region, and used a more diverse sample for the supranational level debate by taking participants who joined in at the 8 regional level debates. 337 total participants from rural areas responded to organisers from 10 regions. These participants became panellists who partook in debates and passed on solutions to organisers and at the EU level. At the European level, 87 citizens from the regional panels met in Belgium for three days to debate - each in their own language. Organisers used telephone directories and electoral lists to randomly select participants, the majority of whom were not members of a political party. Due to the participants living in rural areas, the level of diversity was not comparable to that of a debate taking place in an urban area. However, due to the smaller populations found in rural areas, the sample sizes and participants chosen were more representative, especially in regard to opinions shared in relation to rural affairs and problems. 

According to a 2007 External Evaluation carried out around the initiative, the design for selection not only accounted for major cultural peculiarities found in all 10 regions, but provided fair and equal chances of cooperation and participation during the debates (Sellke et al, 2007); facilitators catered to differences in linguistics during debate, thereby providing each participant with a voice. Additionally, both regional coordinators and facilitators were treated as organisers of the entire process, making the initiative fairer for them as well as participants. The European Citizens’ Panel saw direct, transnational dialogue as a vital tool for European integration and for the creation of a European space for public debate, helping form a more holistic European identity. Overall, the participant selection process catered heavily towards inclusivity as a democratic good. This is also argued by the External Evaluation, suggesting that the initiative exceeded in meeting targets of inclusivity.

Methods and Tools Used

 The methodological design of the initiative depicts how governmental bodies provide means of executing political citizenship through the expansion of “decentralised mechanisms of decision-making and policy implementation” resulting in such regional bodies having increased involvement in policy design, supervision and integration (Garcia, 2006). This means that, by means of public debate held within the initiative, citizens are able to deliberate on political issues and have a direct say in policies regarding said issues - the methods used in the panel allowed suggestions to be brought forward to policymakers, facilitated by regional and supranational governmental bodies, to solve rural problems via monitored debates. In this frame of time, this kind of deliberation was desired by the EU due to European integration being considered a cornerstone of their objectives. The educational tools used throughout the panel stages, therefore, acted as ways in which citizens could learn more about Common Agricultural Policy; the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development made it abundantly clear that this would be a step towards integration through transparency within the public eye (Murray, 2008) - not only did the outcomes of the initiative increase policy awareness, but also increased the recognition and participant feeling of a concrete European identity, with ‘every second citizen feeling “more European” after participating in the panel’ (External Evaluation, 2007). Similarly, participants also felt like the methods and tools used in the initiative were appropriate to the project overall, with about 50% saying that the deliberative design was productive for dialogue (External Evaluation, 2007). This suggests that participants were treated fairly in a design that felt right for them to debate about the issues at hand to produce something of substance, (Lambek, 2024). In an overall sense, the initiative’s use of successful tools had allowed it to maintain the characteristics of public debate, managing a representative spectrum of opinions to help reconstruct the borders of the public sphere through its influence on policy outcomes (Lambek, 2024).

What Went On 

 In order to organise the initiative and facilitate deliberation within the debates, a variety of roles were used to manage the participants during the panels, such as facilitators, rapporteurs, resource persons, a sounding board, producers, a steering committee and a partners forum. Facilitators helped moderate the debates and allowed fewer vocal citizens to get their opinions across. Facilitators also helped make the proceedings fit the allotted time all while maintaining a flexible setting for all discussions. Rapporteurs transcribed regional deliberations into a report which they then edited - this benefitted external evaluative efforts. The declarations of panellists at the supranational level were also taken to form a collective report on their solutions as outcomes of the debate. Resource persons are witnesses from universities, governments or businesses (stakeholders) who provide transparency and give their perspectives to the public. The sounding board for the European infopack was made up of ten experts on rural issues who helped put together and explain said infopack, involving a level of education and knowledge helping turn citizen participants into mini experts. Producers “steer” the angle that the project will take and are in charge of procuring funding. There are regional producers and a European producer and coordinator. The steering committee had a similar role to the producers. The partners forum allowed for interest groups and the partners of the project to disseminate their views. Ultimately, the facilitation of what went on was broadly transparent publicly and clear to participants. 

Citizens began by describing their own experiences of rural life and the problems they face on a daily basis. In some scenarios participants received an info pack, or were given information by an expert panel which prompted their debate. Sometimes citizens requested to visit a rural site for increased knowledge. The citizens then debated over issues, creating a dialogue where all issue related opinions were valued. Facilitators moderated debates with strict impartiality and encouraged concrete solutions. Facilitators used techniques such as discussion amongst small groups and large groups and presentations. At the European level, these debates had plenary sessions in six languages, and discussions had comprehensive translation. Participants pointed out the transition towards a post-agricultural countryside as a major issue, in which sectors such as tourism had led house prices soaring due to second home ownership. For example, The Irish debate found themselves conflicted with the messaging of local environmentalists as they demanded new affordable housing in their area. When participants considered the future role of rural areas in Europe, they saw a rural-urban relationship to be important economically, socially and environmentally. For example, rural citizen involvement in collaboration with the private sector was seen as a catalyst for economic growth in small/medium sized rural businesses; promotion of local products to large businesses could prove essential for maintaining economic longevity for rural areas reliant on traditional industries. In order to apply recommendations put forward by the citizens panels, support is needed from governments and the EU at all levels. Debates suggested that subsidies and tax exemptions can be used to encourage proposed legislative changes deliberated over in the initiative to grow and embed the importance of rural businesses. The initiative report stresses that the panel did not desire the “wrong kind of subsidies” which would create “imbalances” in rural areas; laws impeding on rural development should be lifted, while legislation that safeguards rural areas should focus on farming. 

The main takeaway from all the debates are the 10 key themes noted in the report on the initiative as decided by the participants, some include: better youth educational and economic opportunities were demanded to stop the drain of young people in rural locations - farming profits should be redirected to rural social projects to accomplish this; improved availability and affordability of public transport and roads involving reduced pollution and energy conservation; the conservation of rural character, heritage and environments were considered important, with a desire to limit new major developments to implement sustainable land practices; contrarily, citizens stressed a desire for greater economic and employment prospects with greater subsidies for some rural development while also lowering taxes for rural sectors - citizens saw agricultural sectors as unstable due to their reliance on subsidies; there was a desire to grow small scale farming and agritourism - citizens recommended the reallocation of public funds to areas in sustainable and organic local farming; better health services were demanded due to the distance between hospitals and long response times. While the panel as a whole suggested a wide range of other funding requests, the most prominent demanded free public transport for under 18s and a basic minimum wage for rural workers - participants recommended that these policy suggestions should be integrated into better policies.

Regional authorities were involved in most of the panels, often to “upstream” the process and provide some funding and steering of the deliberation. Following the debates, meetings took place with local authorities and panellists, most of which resulted with satisfied participants regarding the solutions they had created. News reports of proceedings in local media kept the general public interested and interest groups informed. Debates gave power to the participants to shape the narrative regarding rural issues and give solutions for said issues to a higher governmental body. In turn, mass debate yielded legitimacy to their concerns, making the implementation of justified and successful rural policies more than likely.

Influence, Outcomes and Effects 

 The initiative’s deliberative design pushed for a humanist approach to rural European policy issues and implementation; this approach helped rethink where economic and social activity should be concentrated. It also helped rethink the process of agricultural work to favour environmentalism. The outcomes of this design were positive overall, ultimately succeeding in its endeavours to debate at the supranational level and provide EU policymakers with solutions. Directly, participants made influential demands within the EU to help integrate a policy framework. In this sense, they succeeded in having a positive democratic outcome by providing democratic values during deliberation; the panel was able to make citizen’s beliefs transparent to policymakers in a high level of detail to later affect policy outcomes. Participants demonstrated a great level of satisfaction with the proceedings as the supranational bodies involved showed interest in both taking the panel seriously and using their ideas.

Both citizens and organisations reacted positively to the high engagement level seen throughout the process and also to its potential policy outcomes. However, there were some issues with the precise description of roles during the proceedings which compromised the usefulness of some procedures. Some organisations were also more critical of the process, arguing that its solutions were too general and wouldn't affect policy. On the other hand, many policymakers and stakeholders, due to their later satisfaction with the project, suggested that they were willing to consider the regions’ respective issues and results provided, though at the time it was too early to determine a direct policy outcome. The report suggested that solutions would have a long term effect on the collective future of rural Europe; not only did it help solidify the notion of a ‘European identity’, but also gave the conception of a Common Agricultural Policy an argument and foundation; bottom-Up processes such as this can influence issues at large felt daily in the EU. Finally, the report suggests that every European citizen could potentially be called on to deliberate new legislation in the future.

Impact on Democratic Goods

 This initiative has succeeded in its democratic innovation through the facilitation of democratic goods; both the Final Report and External Evaluation agree that the democratic innovation demonstrated by the Panel has shown how public debates can be successful in their application of democratic values, and by extension, democratic goods. Such goods provide an analytical approach by which democratic processes can have their legitimacy assessed (Smith, 2009). With this in mind, the initiative was considered “innovative with regard to its process, related governance scales, cultural and linguistic challenges, and the vast methodological, political and financial partnership involved” (External Evaluation, 2007), emphasising the innovative success of the Panel. Efficiency and transferability are complementary to the main goods (Smith, 2009) evaluated below.

Inclusiveness

 As explained in “Participant Recruitment and Selection” section, this initiative proves itself as successful in its measure of inclusivity as a democratic good; depicting the presence of the participants, what resulted in being a representative sample of those from rural and local areas was used in the assembly of deliberative panels. Proving the enabling of voice for participants, they were given equal chances within the debates to get their opinions across, managed by expert facilitators. This voice was emphasised by bringing the rural issues of participants to the supranational level as they were represented in the European Commission by fellow panellists. To tackle the issue of multiple languages being present, bilingual groups were used for each of the panels; these were evaluated to be a positive aspect of the process as they facilitated the inclusion of multiple ethnicities and linguistics in one discussion. Participants and the External Evaluation also considered the Panel to be highly flexible and fair, especially at the regional level, with a methodology built around the cultural peculiarities of the regions. Across regions, 70% of participants found the conditions fair, and 80% found themselves being treated equally. In regard to the equality of tools used, the External Evaluation stated that panellists appreciated the European infopack and gave it positive remarks, being judged on appropriateness in regard to regional specific issues, treating each region fairly. On the other hand, the infopack was not available to all regional panels at the start of their regional process, limiting the sense of equality of debate and access to information. Overall, the Panels proved themselves to greatly appreciate measures of equality and inclusivity through the use of presence and voice, though might be benefitted by the equal dissemination of European information.

Popular Control 

 As a whole, the Panels were controlled by host governments and regional authorities as well as their partners and stakeholders who dictated the general structure of debates, deliberation and information dissemination. They also controlled the topics at any given time. With this in mind, popular control was displayed throughout debate sessions, as participants were able to control the debate narrative when offering solutions and mentioning rural issues - this is also important in considering their influence over the integration of a Common Agricultural Policy. Participants’ popular control is essential in the legitimacy of democratic outcomes regarding the process, as its presence indicates the participatory success of the deliberation and hand. They could also require site visits to extend their knowledge of a given subject. Participants demonstrated popular control in their importance regarding the decision making process for the running and results of Panels; their control culminates ultimately in their gathered solutions given to the European Commission at the supranational level. However, a lack of popular control was shown where participants were unsure of their roles and leadership status, with “perceived inequality among the organisational team” (External Evaluation, 2007). This was reflected in the participants who could alter topics of discussion, whereas some in other panels could only stick to a rigid structure (Karolewski, 2010). Some participants were also made to vote on issues rather than wholly deliberate, limiting their popular control.

Considered Judgement 

By the nature of deliberation through public debate, a level of considered judgement is needed to help individual participants understand the perspective of others and to understand the technical details of the issues at hand; in this case, participants demonstrated a clear level of understanding both in their consideration of issues, solutions, and paths to execute solutions offered via the EU. To understand these complexities, citizens were offered detailed European infopacks. Infopacks were available in each of the regional languages appearing in the Panels. Citizens were also given 14 factsheets going into detail on each rural issue, providing necessary background information and context on how they might reach a solution through debate. These fact sheets were both information-dense and not overwhelming, and proved successful in the Final Report. Site visits also demonstrated considered judgement by educating citizens. While the fact sheets were balanced in their information to facilitate considered judgement, they missed some important issue factors, such as including the context behind the perceived roles of men and women in rural areas. Complaints were also made regarding the information provided being ‘too European’ and not specific enough to particular cases of rural issues. Moreover, with some infopacks not being made available in some cases, there were significant issues with some citizen’s understanding of topics. Although some of this was balanced out by presentations offered by experts, ⅓ of participants saw the dialogue with experts as lacking use. Similarly, due to the otherwise high demand for experts, some groups in debates weren’t able to receive any expert dialogue choices or attention. There were also issues with expert visits as they were overwhelmed with questions outside of their subject areas, resulting in diminished effectiveness. Overall, the initiative maintained some level of considered judgement through the education of participants, yet still maintained a level of scrutiny according to the External Evaluation.

Transparency 

 To boost the transparent of the project, a Final Report and External Evaluation of the process is available; proceedings of the Panels were published in local media and reported on at the supranational level to make transparent the processes for stakeholders and policy makers to see; these stakeholders were also present in the Panel debates. This ensured that the public debate remained open to those invested in rural interests by keeping the public up to date with events taking place. As an innovative procedure, transparency was also vital for this initiative as it measured its democratic legitimacy as a future prospect to be used by the EU. Conversely, the External Evaluation reported that transparency suffered as a result of the large variety of stakeholders and different panels in different regions being present, meaning that the public couldn't tell the difference between cases. This resulted in the differences in Panels lacking a systematic comparison through the Evaluation. Moreover, 6 out of 8 regions performed random sampling of participants, whereas 2 struggled with a random selection. Some regions also had target quotas as a result of organisational and sponsorship influence, forming different processes. Another region attempted to form subgroups through sampling, which were often unrepresentative. These issues contribute to the lack of transparency due to the overarching appearance of seamless and fluid bureaucracy as identified in much of the Final Report, whereas the External Evaluation is more critical, which claimed starkly that “85% of the surveyed citizens gave positive remarks in the questionnaires when evaluating transparency”. This directly suggests that the majority of participants found events transparent. Ironically, the External Evaluation also argued that citizens were not clear of the results of the process. Citizens used flip-charts to walk around and share ideas, though there was little later discussion on this and the visualisation of results remained ineffective. At the regional level, transparency was also in question regarding the themes discussed, as participants found it hard to focus coherently on one matter at a time. Working and reporting groups were also led by different people and were only coordinated on some issues, leading to confusion. In summary, while participants saw the initiative as transparent, there might be some aspects of the project they remained unaware of.

Efficiency

 To boost the economic efficiency of funding, costs were spread across a variety of regional and national authorities and foundations facilitating the deliberation. The large scale of the study would require significant funding if repeated, which would be problematic if repeated in less wealthy countries. The External Evaluation claimed that “50% of the citizens stated that the process design was appropriate for a productive dialogue”, hinting at the greater efficiency of wider participation. However, due to the lack of clear responsibilities given to facilitators, efficiency dropped. This was exacerbated by the lack of obvious leadership mentioned above. Unclear divisions on the format did leave some facilitators in the dark. Furthermore, there were reported unnecessary delays in the process, reducing the efficiency of potential innovative deliberation. In this sense, economic and organisational efficiency was lost as the funds required for attendance had to compensate citizens and facilitators for lost time. The External Evaluation also adds that ‘preparing staff turned out to be cumbersome and time-consuming’; while facilitators were satisfied in general with the logistical performance of the organisation, “there was no clear assignment of responsibilities and duties” hence a confusion about “who has to do what at which time”. Overall, the efficiency of the project as a democratic good is hard to determine as most of the Evaluation maintained a negative approach while offering positive participant commentary; most participants had common recommendations after the panel so the pilot was deemed a success. It was also seen as economically worthwhile by the report. Also, external efficiency of the project is hard to judge as the report was only given in brief after the panel, and the actual policy implementations from the panel are still vague. 

Transferability

 Transferability measures the extent to which the innovative design of the Panel can be applied externally, outside of the pilot study; internal transferability was shown by the regional panels operating separately within the project using the same successful methods and structure, though they did operate with separate languages - which was worked around at the supranational level. Externally, the framework used by the initiative was applied in other issues, such as the European Citizen’s Panel on the Future of Europe, which proved a success. The scale and method of funding was also considered to be innovative, setting a precedent for future pilots involving part public-private funding. Stakeholders also wished to use the successes of debates to conduct similar projects consisting of a similar system where stakeholders and governments cooperate sharing control. Some policy makers not only saw the panel as a means of creating policy solutions, but were excited by the concept of “citizen consultants” created by the panel who could use their expertise in other initiatives. In regard to the transferability of leadership, with equality being pushed it remains hard to draw conclusions determining the success of panel operations (which were managed in different ways). For future projects, a clear structure, funding and leadership system would be required, making debates fairer and more equal. An independent consultant for each future panel would increase transferability. Similarly, the methodological charter published to ensure future regional panels follow a similar method would require a clearer implementation. The transferability of panels implemented away from developed EU nations can be questioned too, as the combination of joint debates presents cooperative challenges as well as funding issues for poorer countries; without a stable funding body, it would prove difficult to hold similar projects. Furthermore, the panel serves an ideological method whereby EU citizens can be united in issue solving - in nations where more insular perspectives reside, a selfless outcome is less likely and politically divisive. The panel, however, did seem to change the opinions of participants regarding policy matters - due the aspects of public debate integrated into the panels, this tool is best suited for a deliberative session on changing the opinions of informed participants. Thus, the idealised model shows itself as innovative in some regard to transferability, although the long term impact of panels is hard to assess, and a direct influence on policy might be too desirable for use in other projects.

Conclusion

 The European Citizens Panel on the Roles of Rural Areas ultimately succeeded in its goal of giving rural citizens a voice through public debate and deliberative methods. It succeeds in multiple measures of democratic goods, yet fails short in many regards - although the final reports and participants felt very positive about the process. It also succeeded in advocating for a homogeneous European identity as facilitated through democratic innovation and debate. The main issue with such a large scale project is seen in its transferability, or lack thereof, when applying pilot methodology to other initiatives. Such a high level of funding, cooperation and agreement on issues is hard to find anywhere besides the EU. In conclusion, our evaluation of democratic goods showed mixed results; although most aspects of the initiative succeeded regarding said goods, making the process an arguable success, the areas in which democratic goods reside are limited and create an imbalance in addition to a lack of clarity in the direct outcome of policy influences. Thus, in spite of any concurrent democratic innovation, the EU simply may not be willing to apply its methods and tools in future pilots, political contexts or public debates.

Bibliography

Eriksen, E. (2006). Deliberation and the problem of democratic legitimacy in the EU Are working agreements the most that can be expected? 

Eriksen, E.O. and Fossum, J.E. (2000). Democracy in the European Union: Integration Through Deliberation? Google Books. Psychology Press. ‌

Fattore, G., Dubois, H.F.W. and Lapenta, A. (2012). Measuring New Public Management and Governance in Political Debate. Public Administration Review, 72(2), pp.218–227.

Future Generations (2007). European Citizens’ Panel on the roles of rural areas (2006-2007) Foundation for Future Generations (Final Report). 

Garcia, M. (2006). Citizenship Practices and Urban Governance in European Cities. Urban Studies, 43(4), 745-765. 

Karolewski, I.P. (2010). Pathologies of Deliberation in the EU. European Law Journal, 17(1), pp.66–79. 

Lambek, S. (2024). The Constitutive Power of Public Debate. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 57(1), pp.156–173.

Murray, M. (2008) ‘Planning Through Dialogue for Rural Development: The European Citizens’ Panel Initiative’, Planning Practice & Research, 23(2), pp. 265–279.

Sellke, Piet & Renn, Ortwin & Cornelisse, Corinne. (2007). European citizens' panels: final report of the external evaluation. 

Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation.

Weale, A. (2011). New Modes of Governance, Political Accountability and Public Reason. Government and Opposition, 46(1), pp.58-80.