A co-design process in which trained members of social organisations co-designed tools and led events to incorporate the perspectives of voiceless people in the Public Debate on the sea, supported by the CNDP and Res Publica, as part of the PHOENIX project.
Problems and Purpose
Over the last few decades, participatory democracy in France has increased in number and taken a variety of forms, from neighbourhood councils to participatory workshops. However, mechanisms based on voluntary participation have shown their limitations, as the participants do not reflect the diversity of the population (older people, higher levels of education, advantaged socio-economic status), with an absence of people who are usually far removed from decision-making, such as those in unstable or precarious situations.
To deal with this situation, the Commission Nationale du Débat Public (CNDP), the French independent authority responsible for guaranteeing the right to information and public participation in the development of projects and public policies with an environmental impact, has adopted various strategies in its public debates, such as drawing lots to create groups of citizens representative of society. However, having a diverse range of participants is sometimes not enough, as so-called ‘remote’ audiences must also be able to have their say.
This is the purpose of the experiment described in this article, conducted and funded by the CNDP and PHOENIX. The aim of this European project is to devise democratic innovations that strengthen citizen participation in the implementation of the European Green Deal, represented in France by the consultancy firm specialized in consultation and collaborative dialogue Res publica. These three bodies, which consider the principle of inclusion to be central to their approach, have launched a ground-breaking initiative: disseminating the public debate on “the sea in debate” by and for people who are said to be ‘far removed’ from decision-making, by working actively with social centres and associations. The non-mixed approach is justified by the objective of creating a safer and more egalitarian environment for participants, thereby encouraging the expression and participation of people who are far removed from decision-making.
Background History and Context
In March 2023, the French government asked the National Commission for Public Debate (CNDP) to review the strategic facade documents (DSF). These documents define the long-term coexistence (up to 2050) of marine conservation and the development of maritime activities (fishing, tourism, transport, energy), and must identify priority areas for offshore wind power since the APER law of 2023.
For the public debate on the sea, the CNDP opted for a different approach to its usual practices by organising four simultaneous public debates on the four maritime façades of mainland France, due to the specific regional and coastal characteristics. The novel approach detailed in this article, supported by the CNDP and the European Phoenix project, was one of the participatory processes of the façade of the Hauts-de-France and Normandy regions.
Geographically, the East Channel - North Sea coastline stretches from the Normandy-Breton Gulf to the Belgian border, encompassing two regions (Normandy and Hauts-de-France) and seven départements. This area, which includes the Channel Islands to the west and a third of which is made up of protected marine areas, is characterised by heavy maritime and port traffic and deeply-rooted maritime industries (fishing, shellfish farming, shipbuilding, maritime trade). It is home to major ports such as Le Havre, Cherbourg, Calais, Dunkirk and Boulogne-sur-Mer. A significant industrial and economic hub is concentrated along the Seine and in Hauts-de-France, a region with a historically industrial economy. The coast contributes almost 20% of national marine aggregate production. In terms of energy, the region is a hotbed of production, with the presence of numerous nuclear reactors and the development of renewable energies, particularly offshore wind power. The high population density and growing urbanisation along the coast are accentuating the challenges of development, protection against natural hazards (erosion, flooding) and preservation of marine and coastal ecosystems. Tourism, another important economic component, raises sustainability issues, particularly around the Normandy landing beaches and seaside resorts. The coast is also an area of military and defence activity, and the Hauts-de-France region is affected by the flow of migrants to the UK.
The public debate on the sea is taking place in a singular context due to tensions in the fisheries sector linked to Brexit, major flooding in Normandy and Hauts-de-France, and a ban on the marketing of oysters in Normandy due to a norovirus. Although various consultations and public debates have been organised previously on related subjects at different territorial levels, none has reached such a scale. This debate, which ran from 20 November 2023 to 26 April 2024, gave rise to numerous events and contributions. According to CNDP figures, there were 375 events, 21,043 people attended the events, 20,088 written contributions and 266,569 visits to the debate profile on social networks. The legal procedure culminated in a report and a response report from the government and RTE (the electricity transmission system operator) in September 2024, which made it possible to update the DSFs and the mapping of offshore wind power.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The design and implementation of this experiment has been supported by CNDP and the HORIZON project PHOENIX – The Rise of Citizen Voices for a Greener Europe (Grand Agreement ID: 101037328). This innovant process were also made possible thanks to the involvement of the CNDP's Manche Est - Mer du Nord coastal teams and Res publica (also financed by Phoenix).
This unprecedented approach involved two phases. The first consisted in setting up a group of people from social organisations, whose main objective was to prepare for the public debate by gathering the views of people who are said to be ‘remote’ from decision making. In order to ensure the group's participation, provision was made for compensation (indemnities due to jury in the French courts) and expenses (transport, food and hotel expenses for the first two meetings in Arcueil and Amiens) for its members. All this provision was shared between the CNDP and Phoenix. The CNDP and Res publica teams were responsible for preparing, moderating and reporting on the meetings.
Once the participants had been trained and had gained confidence, they were asked to organise events, through their social structure, in order to collect contributions from their publics. During this second phase, they were accompanied by teams from the CNDP and Res publica, who provided advice and support by organising “café visio” and helped to prepare and run events in the regions.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
During the dissemination phase in the regions, participants were mobilised by the participating social structures, which acted as trusted intermediaries. The CNDP and Res publica teams supported them by providing communication advice and helping to draft certain emails. Beyond emails and posters, the communication about the events relied on word-of-mouth and direct contact by the participants of the first phase. This proximity-based communication proved essential in reaching voiceless people.
3 out of 5 events were organised within the social structure, bringing together the usual public, while the remaining ones were held at existing events, thus benefiting from increased visibility and communication.
In total, this dissemination of the debate enabled 250 people to take part, most of them are part of or linked to ‘remote’ groups. Some events attracted only women beneficiaries, others targeted only social workers in region, and still others attracted a much more diverse audience. While the diversity in age and gender was not a formal requirement, the reliance on varied social structures naturally brought a range of profiles. The approach focused less on demographic representativeness and more on reaching people voiceless people.
Methods and Tools Used
This innovative process involving the inclusion group and the dissemination of the debate by and for voiceless people was included in the public debate on the sea. Public debate is an official public participation procedure organised in the context of major development projects or public policies with an impact on the environment, and supervised by the CNDP (public debate : https://www.dicopart.fr/debat-public-2013; public debate on the sea : https://www.debatpublic.fr/la-mer-en-debat).
The methods and tools used varied according to the stage of the process. To sum up :
- Territorial Commission of Co-Design or Inclusion group: In order to ensure that the information is disseminated in the regions by and to people who are ‘far removed’ from the decision, the public debate team for the Channel East - North Sea (CNDP) and Res publica contacted social centres and associations in the summer of 2023 to set up an inclusion group. The organisations contacted were all located in the Normandy, Hauts-de-France and Ile-de-France regions. Ile-de-France is not a region concerned by the façade, but the CNDP and Res publica chose to include this region because of the historical, social and economic links between Normandy and Ile-de-France due to the presence of the Seine. After several months of research and numerous meetings to convince the social structures, the CNDP and Res publica set up a group deliberately composed of people working in social centres or associations and beneficiaries of the latter. There was at least one employee and beneficiary pair per social organisation, to make it easier to organise meetings of the inclusion group and events in the regions. The 25-strong group was made up of equal numbers of people of different ages and backgrounds, and came from three of the regions covered by the trial: Normandy, Hauts-de-France and Île-de-France. It should be noted that the group included one minor and one migrant. The following social structures were members of the inclusion group: the Henri Matisse social centre in Calais (Hauts-de-France), the Oxygène association in Dieppe (Normandy), the Dunkirk social centre (Hauts-de-France), the Fabrique Pierre Hamet in Le Havre (Normandy), the Saint-Quentin social centre (Hauts-de-France) and the Dorothy association (Ile-de-France).
- Co-design: As part of the PHOENIX project, Res publica was responsible for helping all the partners to make the concept of co-design operational in their areas. It therefore applied its own approach with the CNDP, which has been translated into a process of co-construction of the tools and methods used to gather the arguments of the ‘remote’ public from the decision-making and of the participation mechanisms in the territories. Co-design was facilitated by the attention paid by the CNDP and Res publica teams to the accessibility of information on the issues at stake in the debate (computer graphics, definition and conceptualisation work, fresco, etc.) and to a horizontal approach that was welcomed by the participants and their organisations.
- Icebreakers:
- Moving debate (https://www.reseau-canope.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/Projets/Valeurs_de_la_republique/EC_Le_debat_mouvant.pdf)
- The wool ball adapted to the themes of the sea (https://blog.myagilepartner.fr/index.php/2019/05/16/ice-breaker-16-la-pelote-de-laine/)
- Activities:
- Photolangage (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9thode_Photolangage)
- Fresco of the sea developed for the public debate on the sea by the Nantes maritime chair (https://chairemaritime.univ-nantes.fr/fresque-de-la-planification-spatiale-maritime-2)
- Participatory evaluation of the process (https://i-cpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Hassenforder-Ferrand-2020-SET-Evaluer-la-participation.pdf)
- Platform developed by One Source, a Phoenix partner (https://memn.onesource.pt/fr) to build on the inclusive process to participation.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
The initial training and co-construction phase enabled the members of the inclusion group to become actors in the debate and to prepare themselves to disseminate the debate in their territories. The tools and methods co-constructed during this phase were those used subsequently. The members of the inclusion group had to rely on their social structure to organise events to gather arguments for the debate. They were supported by teams from the CNDP and Res publica, who advised them and met their needs in terms of organisation and logistics, through regular ‘café visio’ events (10/01/24; 24/01/24; 10/02/24; 21/02/24; 06/03/24; 18/03/24; 20/03/24; 03/04/24). The purpose of these videoconference meetings was to: to review the organisation of events and share experiences; to respond to the needs of the organisations: printing for the photolangage and computer graphics, organisation of events, participation in internal discussions, etc.; to invite members to take part in the other events organised by the public debate on the sea; and to remind members of the important dates for the future of the participatory process. Additional meetings were held between the CNDP and/or Res publica teams and organisations requesting personalised support. In addition, all the structures were provided with a ‘common teaching kit’, containing all the material needed to run workshops to gather the views and provide information on the debate.
As a result of the work carried out together during the inclusion group meetings and the support of the CNDP and Res publica teams, 4 of the 6 organisations involved organised events dedicated to the public debate between 30 January and 13 April 2024, each attended by between 25 and 100 people. The events took various forms: building on an existing event (‘Drôle de fête’), organising a dedicated event on the premises of the social centre (‘Citizen's breakfast’), inviting regulars (‘Community café’), taking part in a territorial assembly (‘Territorial assembly’), or running a stand at a popular festival (‘Fête de la mer’).
Sessions often began with a moving debate as an ice-breaker. This fun activity was sometimes led by members of the social organisations, with the aim of building skills. After this, participants were invited to join tables arranged in cabaret format. The CNDP, Phoenix, the public debate on the sea and the associated issues were then presented, usually by a member of the CNDP or Res publica. This sequence ended with a sharing of experience by the structure of the inclusion group.
Following this introduction, the organisations all used photolangage as a means of gathering their views. It consisted of using photos to represent each group's vision of the sea. At the same time, the participants were asked collectively to complete a contribution form in which they were asked to express their observations, concerns, proposals and questions/information needs. They were then asked to present their work orally. These moments were carefully recorded by the CNDP teams in order to feed, in addition to the completed supports and photolangages, the arguments of the debate report.
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
This experiment has fully produced the expected results. Thanks to co-design, a group of 25 people from social structures were trained and co-constructed tools and methods for participation that enabled 250 people to have their say, the majority from the voiceless people.
We can also highlight other effects, results or influences:
Revision of the Strategic Facades Documents (DSF) by the French Government and RTE: At the end of the public debate on the sea, the CNDP published a report containing all the arguments, including those of this participatory process addressing specific concerns about social equity and territorial justice for the energy installations. In accordance with the law, the project owners issued a response report in September 2024, which updated the DSFs and the offshore wind mapping. Although it is not possible to know exactly what responses the project owners gave to this participatory process, the CNDP deemed the response of the French government and RTE to the observations and proposals from this façade to be ‘sufficiently complete’.
Practices for including voiceless people at the National Commission for Public Debate: The CNDP has always sought to improve access to public debate for all citizens, particularly those who are traditionally excluded. However, public inclusion methodologies are not effective in all contexts. The process deployed by Phoenix has proved to be highly effective in gathering the views of voiceless people: it has progressed from the creation and preparation of the inclusion group and tools to the organisation and running of events in the regions by these same people, supported by the organisers. It was too the first time that the CNDP tested a single-social format for inclusion group, including only people from voiceless people, to create a safer and more egalitarian environment.
Inclusion outcomes: the evaluation questionnaires and the final evaluation session show that the majority of participants appreciated the co-design and came away enriched by the experience. They felt they had a better understanding of the issues surrounding the sea thanks to the awareness-raising time. They also liked being able to debate amongst themselves. Many took part in other aspects of the public debate: stopovers, webinars, M3D and two stakeholders' papers.
It should be noted that the impact was different depending on the status of the members. The employees of the social structures had the opportunity to share their experience with their peers and to test new methods of facilitation, many of which they told us they would use again. As for the beneficiaries, some gained in confidence during the process, expressing themselves more easily orally. One beneficiary, who was very involved in the process, became a member of the board of her social centre.
Local events’ outcomes: photolangage was used in all of the initiatives and proved particularly effective with the so-called remote public, both because it is a fun way of raising awareness of the issues surrounding the sea and because it encourages dialogue and encourages people to speak out. The evaluation questionnaires also showed that these meetings were appreciated and that the participants felt valued and heard.
Inspiring other inclusion initiatives: The discussions between the CNDP and Phoenix on inclusion have led to a greater number of inclusion mechanisms on the Eastern Channel – North Sea than on others. This participatory process was scrutinised and the CNDP team involved in this debate was asked to advise other teams in other public debates on inclusion.
During the final session of the inclusion group devoted to evaluating the whole process, held on 18 June 2024, the members wrote recommendations for creating an inclusive participation process. They defined together what should be done and what should not be done. This advice and the minutes of the inclusion group sessions, as well as the tools and resources used by the members in their territories, are available on a dedicated website https://memn.onesource.pt/fr to inspire other similar initiatives.
Analysis and Lessons Learned
This inclusive process was analyzed through the lens of the four democratic goods as theorized by Graham Smith (2009): inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgment, and transparency. These provide a robust framework for assessing the democratic quality of participatory processes. Additionally, the reflections below incorporate certain issues specific to the PHOENIX project, in particular the challenges of inclusion, complexity and trust.
Each section highlights how the process addressed (or failed to address) these aspects, offering lessons for future inclusion initiatives.
The impact of the process on inclusiveness
The success of this experiment relied mainly on the training, awareness-raising and co-construction time that enabled the members of the inclusion group to become actors in the debate. In order to eliminate financial barriers and ensure active participation in all the meetings, all the members of the inclusion group were offered expenses and compensation, which enabled a high level of participation to be maintained.
The dissemination of the debate in the regions by the members of the inclusion group enabled a larger number of people to be reached, by relying on the network and the usual audiences of the social structures. These organisations were able to adapt their communications and tools to the specific characteristics of their area and had the trust of these communities, making it easier to express their opinions. This relationship of trust already established reduced the initial barriers of mistrust towards the debate organisers. In this way, the approach directly addressed Challenge 6 “Trust” of the PHOENIX project, by fostering mutual trust between voiceless people and institutional actors involved in the public debate.
Two of the six organisations were unable to organise events in their area. The first was the only organisation represented by a single, non-salaried member, who was unable to obtain sufficient internal support. The second involved 4 members, 1 salaried employee and 3 beneficiaries. When the salaried employee was unable to take part in the dissemination for health reasons, the beneficiaries did not feel able to take over. These two cases demonstrate the importance of the employee of the social structure in the deployment of the public debate in the territories.
The tools and methods deployed have proved particularly effective in raising awareness of the issues surrounding the sea and in gathering the views of the voiceless people, thus addressing Challenge 2 Complexity of the PHOENIX project, which aims to improve the understanding and handling of complex and interrelated topics. These tools and methods were co-constructed by the members of the inclusion group, who were themselves part of the remote public from decision-making. This involvement increased their commitment and motivation to take part in the debate.
The CNDP and Res publica teams provided support during this key phase of disseminating the debate in the regions, by helping to prepare, mobilise and run events. This logistical and methodological support aimed to empower the social structures, overcoming any lack of resources or experience.
The impact of process on popular control
The arguments put forward by voiceless people highlighted a number of specific concerns, which were highlighted in the CNDP's report. In addition to the traditional themes addressed by all the other stakeholders, remote audiences raised the links between environmental issues and social equity, emphasising differentiated responsibility and the need to consider the social implications of maritime policies, as well as proposals to broaden the usual stakeholders by including migrants. Lastly, they questioned the knowledge and legitimacy of decision-making, calling into question the level of knowledge of elected representatives on maritime issues and, in particular, highlighting the experience of citizens.
Even though the CNDP deemed the response from the project owners to be satisfactory, the direct influence is difficult to measure, which could lead people who took part to think that their voice had no real impact.
The CNDP considers the experiment to have been a success, indicating its recognition of the value of the approach in potentially enriching its future public debates.
The impact of process on the considered judgement
Throughout the experiment, efforts were made by the organising teams to make it easier for voiceless people to understand the issues surrounding the sea. Although linked to the strategic documents for the seafront, the public debate addressed concrete environmental issues, which were highlighted using computer graphics that were tested and approved by the inclusion group. In addition, the adoption of a horizontal stance and the incorporation of spaces for dialogue and expression in the course of the meetings fostered a climate of trust. Finally, the deliberation methods were particularly diverse, encouraging collective reflection with plenary and sub-group sessions.
When it came to disseminating the information, most of the organisations used the moving debate, which was designed to stimulate initial reflection on issues relating to the sea, and photolangage as a tool for gathering opinions. Most of the participants in these events were familiar with the social structures and felt comfortable expressing their opinions and listening to those of others.
However, some members of the inclusion group said they wanted more deliberation on this complex subject and the format of some events in the territories was less conducive to exchanges.
The impact of the process on transparency
For the inclusion group and at each event in the territories, time was systematically set aside to clearly communicate the objectives and the process, as well as the way in which contributions would be taken into account. This transparency strengthened the confidence of the participants and made the process easier to understand. However, as the CNDP gives the same value to all contributions and groups them by theme without specifying their origin, it is not possible to clearly identify what a particular event has contributed to the final report. This approach, while fair, can also be perceived as discouraging by participants, who do not see a direct record of their contribution.
At the end of the process, the inclusion group was able to evaluate the whole approach in a participative way, identifying advice for structures wishing to carry out similar initiatives. The entire process was documented and shared via a website (https://memn.onesource.pt/fr), enabling it to be capitalised on.
Territorial Commission of Co-Design’s impact on the pilot process
The inclusion group met twice between December 2023 and February 2024 for training, co-construction and discussions to enable them to be disseminated throughout their territory.
First of all, they were trained in the challenges of the sea debate and citizen participation. Trough co-design, they were then able to test and adapt tools and methods for raising awareness of the debate and gathering the views of the voiceless people, like photolangage and sea fresco. The co-design and discussion sessions boosted their confidence. A teaching kit was requested during the first meeting of the inclusion group. The kit, which was distributed during the second session of the inclusion group and was also available on a shared drive, contains the following for each structure: sets of photos for the photolangage; a communication kit for the public debate on the sea; infographics summarising the public debate on the sea; and the project owner's files. These elements and the preparation of events to disseminate the debate were decisive in turning the participants into ambassadors for the debate in their local area.
Obstacles or challenges encountered in deploying the process
The main difficulty in this experimentation was the constitution of the inclusion group. The team responsible for the public debate on the sea in the Eastern Channel and North Sea relied mainly on its network, which had already organised participative processes and/or public debates in these regions. Res publica, for its part, carried out research directly on the Internet.Even though the experimental aspect of the approach and the interest for these structures in terms of visibility and experience sharing were emphasised, many structures did not respond to our contacts, others told us that they were interested in the approach but that their schedules for the autumn were already full or that they lacked human resources. Some needed to obtain the approval of the people in charge, but in the end they did not, for various reasons (time, interest, etc.). To overcome these challenges, it would have been beneficial to recruit the members of the inclusion group even earlier. Another challenge in recruiting the voiceless people is that they need to be compensated and paid to participate. Added to this is the need for a different, more horizontal and flexible approach to the activities, so that they feel at ease and can express themselves.
