**2. The AWARE method and pilot applications**

#### **2.1 Methodology**

Broadly speaking, the AWARE methodology engage panels of randomly selected citizens from all countries of Europe and all walks of life *("European citizens' juries")* to make a critical assessment of research goals, outcomes and management options, focusing on their societal acceptance. The assessment is undertaken by means of brokerage activities among different forms of knowledge - i.e. between the different scientific disciplines needed to understand complex issues, the citizens' everyday life ("non expert") knowledge, the different stakeholders' interests, and the way decision-makers tackle societal challenges. One of the key characteristics of the AWARE method is indeed linking together scientists and citizens early in the process in order to provide a common understanding of the issue at stake. Thus, lay citizens gain confidence to discuss the issues with other stakeholders and form independent opinions.

Bringing together scientists, citizens and decision-makers in knowledge brokerage activities – by means of structured citizens' conference processes where citizens' panels discuss and present their recommendations *("Citizens' declarations")* to policy makers and society at large – is at the heart of the proposed approach. This is a new way of connecting citizens, experts, stakeholders and policy makers in order to:


The pilot experiences conducted so far show that the method works, delivering important benefits for all the actors involved:


Broadly speaking, the AWARE methodology engage panels of randomly selected citizens from all countries of Europe and all walks of life *("European citizens' juries")* to make a critical assessment of research goals, outcomes and management options, focusing on their societal acceptance. The assessment is undertaken by means of brokerage activities among different forms of knowledge - i.e. between the different scientific disciplines needed to understand complex issues, the citizens' everyday life ("non expert") knowledge, the different stakeholders' interests, and the way decision-makers tackle societal challenges. One of the key characteristics of the AWARE method is indeed linking together scientists and citizens early in the process in order to provide a common understanding of the issue at stake. Thus, lay citizens gain confidence to discuss the issues with other stakeholders and

Bringing together scientists, citizens and decision-makers in knowledge brokerage activities – by means of structured citizens' conference processes where citizens' panels discuss and present their recommendations *("Citizens' declarations")* to policy makers and society at large – is at the heart of the proposed approach. This is a new way of connecting citizens, experts,

share a common understanding and awareness of the complexity of environmental and

discuss how research and new innovative solutions may help to tackle those challenges

 deliberate about how various research outcomes (scientific advice, new innovative solutions etc.) could or should be taken up by governments or citizens themselves, e.g. by incorporating sustainability into planning or adopting more environmentally-

The pilot experiences conducted so far show that the method works, delivering important

 the scientists learn to communicate results in a tailored manner to citizens, as well as policy makers and stakeholders. They also can broaden their research interests by accepting new inputs, and discovering a public interest in their results, beyond the

 the citizens quickly learn key environmental concepts, change their mind becoming aware of the complexity of the challenges ahead, and reflect on how to tackle them with more systemic approaches. They may better assess which policies would be needed for solving complex problems, and choose to support their politicians in tackling challenging decisions and policies, thanks to the better understanding and greater

 the various stakeholders benefit from the insights and opinions of the scientists, citizens and policy community usually assessed in the more neutral context – i.e. not heavily

 the policy-makers – through meeting the citizens and hearing their proposals – can share common visions on societal challenges that could not be solved with simple

**2. The AWARE method and pilot applications** 

**2.1 Methodology** 

form independent opinions.

societal challenges;

stakeholders and policy makers in order to:

friendly behaviors, respectively.

benefits for all the actors involved:

academic fora;

– now and in the medium-to-long term future;

commitment gained throughout the process;

influenced by special interests – of "citizens juries";

policies, would require systemic and long lasting actions to be implemented beyond electoral terms, and a deeper consensus and commitment of all actors involved. Policy makers also gain further confirmation that decisions successfully involving all actors affected, through increased awareness for instance, are more effective in their implementation and outcomes.

The specific issue addressed in the AWARE project was the deterioration of coastal waters in Europe, and how EU funded research and EU and local policies may help to reduce deterioration and achieve a good ecological status of waters by 2020. This environmental goal is a core objective of the EU Water Framework Directive (European Commission, 2000). This piece of EU legislation provides a coherent framework for the implementation of policies and the assessment of water quality across EU Member States, including river basins, transitional and coastal waters. The outcome expected from a consistent application of the EU water policy assessment process – illustrated in the figure below – is the achievement of good environmental (ecological and chemical) status and the related benefits at a proportionate cost **or** the maintenance of the water body in a moderate quality status with reduced benefits, due to the disproportionate costs of achieving a better quality status.

Fig. 1. Water policy assessment process

In this respect, the AWARE pilot experiments can supply a model for future implementation of participatory assessment of the water policies, whereby lay citizens and stakeholders are involved together with experts and policy makers in AWARE-like processes. These may be especially helpful to assess the "proportionality" of costs against benefits in specific case studies circumstances, because the criteria to be used in the assessment are not uniquely technical, requiring instead the explicit consideration of social norms and values. However,

Sustainability Science and Citizens Participation:

Science-Policy Interface contexts described in the box overleaf.

**2.2 The AWARE citizens conference process** 

are presented in the "*AWARE Citizens Declaration*"1.

Fig. 3. The AWARE citizens' conference process

1 Available on www.aware-eu.net

(AWARE, 2011b).

figure 3 below.

Building a Science-Citizens-Policy Interface to Address Grand Societal Challenges in Europe 127

their recommendations. The mandate to the citizens was to deliberate their assessment of and recommendations for interfacing experts, citizens and policy makers, to achieve a better management of coastal environments in Europe. This assessment has been presented and discussed in the AWARE European Conference "Linking research to policy in the water sector", held on June 9, 2011 in Brussels, at the European Economic and Social Committee

More in detail, the whole process entailed a sequence of activities at EU and local level in the pilot areas, focusing on the same issue – coastal waters' deterioration – in the three different

The panel of 30 randomly selected citizens was the catalyser of the overall process: they met with scientists in a first European workshop – to be acquainted on the topic, the process and their mandate – then split in sub-groups of 10 citizens for each pilot area and met again scientists, stakeholders and decision makers in local workshops and conferences, and finally they convened together all again at the EU level to prepare and discuss in a final conference their assessment of the coastal water management topic and the issue of connectivity between science, society and policy makers. The citizens' assessment and recommendations

The overall process, with the connection between the EU and local levels, is illustrated in

the method is general and may be applied, as mentioned in the introduction, to different societal challenges.

To start with, the AWARE method recognize that there are different ways to effect an interaction between scientists, policy (managers) and the public – whether citizens and/or stakeholders. These are portrayed in Figure 2.

Fig. 2. From traditional to integrated adaptive management

The traditional way is to treat the three fields as entirely autonomous, interacting only within the established formal procedures of democratic societies, i.e. in the framework of public inquiries as prescribed by law or by delegation through elections. Today it is however more common to follow what has been called a 'participation-limited' adaptive management approach (Kusel et al.,1996) which supports the close interaction between scientists and policy but not with citizens or stakeholders. This is pretty much the approach that characterizes the EU Water Framework Directive, as the common framework built up to follow the implementation of the Directive is actively promoting a closer interaction between scientists and policy managers across EU Member States, through the setting up of several thematic working groups. But as the WFD strategists themselves admit, there are shortcomings in their approach, especially with respect to the use of research results from studies other than those commissioned by national governments; and with respect to inputs from stakeholders and civil society.

The integrated adaptive management approach takes a step further and tries to stage and learn from a closer interaction between science, policy, stakeholders and citizens. Such an approach is not necessarily always suitable, but if applicable it displays three main benefits: (a) it recognizes and uses the public as sources of information and knowledge, (b) it builds trust and broadens support and (c) it generates ideas and questions paradigms thus contributing to both learning and creativity in problem-solving. This is what the AWARE process is all about (AWARE, 2011a).

The AWARE process has been concretely performed by recruiting a transnational panel of final water users: 30 citizens randomly selected from three coastal areas of Europe: Gulf of Riga in Latvia and Estonia, Southern North Sea in France and Belgium, and the Goro lagoon in Italy. The citizens' panel has been engaged in a number of workshops with scientific experts, stakeholders and decision makers to assess the best scientific knowledge available, the local water management practices and the EU water policy framework, and to formulate their recommendations. The mandate to the citizens was to deliberate their assessment of and recommendations for interfacing experts, citizens and policy makers, to achieve a better management of coastal environments in Europe. This assessment has been presented and discussed in the AWARE European Conference "Linking research to policy in the water sector", held on June 9, 2011 in Brussels, at the European Economic and Social Committee (AWARE, 2011b).

More in detail, the whole process entailed a sequence of activities at EU and local level in the pilot areas, focusing on the same issue – coastal waters' deterioration – in the three different Science-Policy Interface contexts described in the box overleaf.

#### **2.2 The AWARE citizens conference process**

126 Social Sciences and Cultural Studies – Issues of Language, Public Opinion, Education and Welfare

the method is general and may be applied, as mentioned in the introduction, to different

To start with, the AWARE method recognize that there are different ways to effect an interaction between scientists, policy (managers) and the public – whether citizens and/or

The traditional way is to treat the three fields as entirely autonomous, interacting only within the established formal procedures of democratic societies, i.e. in the framework of public inquiries as prescribed by law or by delegation through elections. Today it is however more common to follow what has been called a 'participation-limited' adaptive management approach (Kusel et al.,1996) which supports the close interaction between scientists and policy but not with citizens or stakeholders. This is pretty much the approach that characterizes the EU Water Framework Directive, as the common framework built up to follow the implementation of the Directive is actively promoting a closer interaction between scientists and policy managers across EU Member States, through the setting up of several thematic working groups. But as the WFD strategists themselves admit, there are shortcomings in their approach, especially with respect to the use of research results from studies other than those commissioned by national governments; and with respect to inputs

The integrated adaptive management approach takes a step further and tries to stage and learn from a closer interaction between science, policy, stakeholders and citizens. Such an approach is not necessarily always suitable, but if applicable it displays three main benefits: (a) it recognizes and uses the public as sources of information and knowledge, (b) it builds trust and broadens support and (c) it generates ideas and questions paradigms thus contributing to both learning and creativity in problem-solving. This is what the AWARE

The AWARE process has been concretely performed by recruiting a transnational panel of final water users: 30 citizens randomly selected from three coastal areas of Europe: Gulf of Riga in Latvia and Estonia, Southern North Sea in France and Belgium, and the Goro lagoon in Italy. The citizens' panel has been engaged in a number of workshops with scientific experts, stakeholders and decision makers to assess the best scientific knowledge available, the local water management practices and the EU water policy framework, and to formulate

societal challenges.

stakeholders. These are portrayed in Figure 2.

Fig. 2. From traditional to integrated adaptive management

from stakeholders and civil society.

process is all about (AWARE, 2011a).

The panel of 30 randomly selected citizens was the catalyser of the overall process: they met with scientists in a first European workshop – to be acquainted on the topic, the process and their mandate – then split in sub-groups of 10 citizens for each pilot area and met again scientists, stakeholders and decision makers in local workshops and conferences, and finally they convened together all again at the EU level to prepare and discuss in a final conference their assessment of the coastal water management topic and the issue of connectivity between science, society and policy makers. The citizens' assessment and recommendations are presented in the "*AWARE Citizens Declaration*"1.

The overall process, with the connection between the EU and local levels, is illustrated in figure 3 below.

Fig. 3. The AWARE citizens' conference process

<sup>1</sup> Available on www.aware-eu.net

Sustainability Science and Citizens Participation:

greater balance. This, in turn, can lead to greater acceptance.

that would reach the targeted public (AWARE 2011c).

attitudinal characteristics.

Building a Science-Citizens-Policy Interface to Address Grand Societal Challenges in Europe 129

The role of the AWARE citizens' panel was akin to that of a "citizens jury". *Citizens Juries*  bring together a panel of randomly selected and demographically representative citizens for a period of a few days to discuss specific policy issues. They tend to have on average 25 members. The deliberations are conducted by a neutral facilitator and often involve experts on the given issue(s) to deepen the debate. What citizen juries aim to achieve is finding a "common ground solution" on the topic of discussion that is presented to the public (Jefferson Center, 2004). This also means that citizen juries aim to represent a great variety of views through different participants, diverse backgrounds and divided opinions. The term "jury" taken from the court case discourse is here intentionally selected. In a way analogous to a court jury, a citizen jury is usually called to weigh the pros and cons of a particular policy proposal in order to decide on its merits but also for identifying its failings. The information thus gained is subsequently used by policy-makers to revise the policy towards

A methodological challenge is the selection and recruitment of participants in a citizens jury. Obviously representativeness is a difficult and often unattainable goal for any small-group activity involving on average 25 citizens (30 in the AWARE case). However, a careful selection procedure can result in the representation of a good spectrum of opinions and relevant socio-demographic characteristics. Important in this respect is that the announcement for any citizen participation reaches a large number of citizens and that a significant higher number than the set target is mobilized to apply for participation in the consultation process. In some citizen juries the dissemination target is set as high as 1,000 persons. Such high numbers are easily achievable when the organizers have access to census or register address databases. Equally high dissemination targets can however also be achieved with less intrusive means through the distribution of information in local newspapers, at the city council, through religious or social institutions or the internet. A dissemination strategy targeting some 1,000 citizens and resulting in some 100 to 200 contacts can be considered a success. The final selection follows on the basis of short individual interviews (face-to-face or by telephone) to tap on basic socio-demographic and

Also in AWARE, the recruitment process of citizens was mostly dominated by the challenge of building a representative sample of the population concerned, and to find people with sufficient English proficiency as well as interest to the topic. The language condition had to be met to ensure that citizens could communicate, in some cases on the regional level already, at least on the European level. Besides this, the selection of citizens was based on their motivations and ideas about coastal water quality. The recruitment of citizens occurred differently among the three case studies. In Sacca di Goro and in the North Sea cases the response rate to the widely lead recruitment campaign was low. In the Gulf of Riga the response to the recruitment campaign was comparatively more positive, potentially due to the activities of the project partner that took on this task, a local NGO – Baltic Environmental Foundation - knowledgeable about the most appropriate dissemination sites

As it concerns the living interaction throughout the AWARE process among all the participants, relevant knowledge has been provided and brokered in different formats and measures: expert knowledge was provided mainly by scientists, tacit and local knowledge mainly by stakeholders and local policy makers. Citizens also provided local knowledge, as

#### *The Science-Policy Interface focus of the AWARE case studies*

The **Southern North Sea case**, as delineated for AWARE purposes, includes the northern part of the French Atlantic coast and eastern Channel, as well the Belgian North Sea cost. The drainage basin covers the Seine, Somme, and Scheldt Rivers and an area of about 100,000 km2. Nutrient pollution of phosphates and nitrates from diffuse sources such as agriculture, are the main focus of this case study. The problem becomes visible to tourists and residents through algae and foam in the water and on the beaches; more subtle changes are also occurring in the changes potentially taking place in the food chain including fish production. Decreasing the pollution in the coastal waters of the case study – in order to achieve Good Ecological Status by 2015 – is a requirement under the EU Water Framework Directive. This case study is transboundary and trans-national. Thus, different authorities across national borders share responsibility for coastal water ecosystem health. The 'hydrological districts' set up under the Water Framework Directive are managed by regional water agencies, but national governments are responsible for marine and coastal waters under the OSPAR Commission (Oslo and Paris Conventions for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic) and the EU Marine Strategy. Several parallel studies – such as the Liteau, Threshold, Timothy, and PIREN-Seine programmes – have allowed links to be developed between watershed data and events in the coastal area, but data after 2003 for modelling is lacking. Additionally, the science-policy interface, although following a good track record in the region given the collaboration within watersheds, lacks the connection across different watersheds. Scientists from the UMR Sisyphe at the University Pierre & Marie Curie in France, and the Laboratory Ecologie des Systemes Aquatiques at the Universite Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium, used models such as MIRO and SENREQUE-RIVERSTRAHLER to describe various ecological processes in the three case study rivers. Based on consultations with the local AWARE citizens participating from France and Belgium, as well as other project partners and citizens from the two other case studies, the models were also used to test different 'scenarios' for measures to reduce nutrients affecting coastal water quality. It is important to note here that the models used in this case study allow for taking into account diffuse and targeted sources of nutrients – the modelling results in fact show that nitrogen pollution is the main challenge in the watershed, stemming from diffuse agricultural sources.

The **Gulf of Riga** is the shallow sub-basin of the Baltic Sea that is shared by Estonia and Latvia. The gulf is exposed to changes from the rest of the Baltic Sea, and the watershed affecting the gulf stretches across five EU and non-EU countries. However, the focus of the case study in the context of AWARE has been on the socio-ecological realities of the two countries mentioned. The Gulf of Riga is suffering from eutrophication due to excessive nutrients, which is common to the whole Baltic Sea. Due to the complex socio-political landscape of the watersheds affecting the Gulf of Riga, a complete assessment and regular monitoring of all contributing river basins is sometimes missing, especially monitoring data on transboundary pollution loads. This also creates difficulties for a continuous science-policy interface, given that transboundary aspects make it hard to establish common grounds for assessments. In terms of involving the public – both citizens and stakeholders – the Public Information Act includes participatory procedures in the decisionmaking processes. However, it became clear throughout the AWARE evaluation process that top-down approaches used so far can be improved significantly to involve citizens in public discussions, in addition to NGOs and stakeholders. At the European level, the EU Water Framework, Marine Strategy and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directives provide the framework under which the Gulf of Riga is required to reach 'good water quality' by 2020. According to the *Economic Analysis of the Baltic Sea Action Plan with Focus on Eutrophication* measures to achieve this goal – bringing sewage treatment systems up to EU standards throughout the Baltic Sea watershed – are estimated to cost 408-975 million Euro a year, 10% of which would have to be invested in the Gulf of Riga basin (HELCOM and NEFCO 2007). Ministries of Environment in Latvia and Estonia state they are already working to attain EU standards, but more recently updated cost information is needed especially for the wastewater loads from Belarus and Russia. As far as implementation time it seems clear this process will go beyond 2020. However, one of the most controversial issues in the case study, which was discussed in all participatory activities of AWARE and described using models, is the potential conflict between good water quality and probable reduction in fisheries output. This is viewed as a major socio-economic and ecological challenge in the Gulf of Riga. An additional socio-economic challenge lies with the fact that the costs necessary to invest in sewage treatment improvement should be borne by countries with no access to, and direct benefits from, the Gulf of Riga. Scientists from the Uppsala University and Bioforsk have studied the conditions in the gulf, using the CoastMab model. This can be applied for the gulf, as it focuses on different sewage treatment scenarios, and other activities undertaken to decrease eutrophication. Additionally, CoastMab has been used to predict fish yield in the gulf. Although an additional model – the Nest model hosted by the Baltic Nest Institute – has been used for example in the Baltic Sea Action Plan, the AWARE process has focused on the results of the CoastMab model, and worked within that model to discuss citizen-led scenario modifications.

**Sacca di Goro** is the most geographically delimited case study within the AWARE project as it concerns mainly the Sacca di Goro Lagoon, Ferrara (Italy). The Sacca di Goro is located within the Po delta, which can be considered as the final ecosystem encountered by the Po river waters. This means that, virtually, even the whole Po river watershed could be considered within the geographical scope. The boundaries defined by the AWARE approach, though, include the lagoon, the inland activities bound to agriculture, and breeding and the Po river channels management systems. At present, the Sacca di Goro is one of the top European sites for clam rearing. About one third of the lagoon surface (8 km2) is exploited for clam farming with an annual production that reached a maximum of approximately 15,000 ton/year in recent years. The corresponding economic revenue has been oscillating between 50 and 100 millions of Euros each year. The main socioeconomic issues, therefore, regard the development of a sustainable clam farming activity, i.e. find a balance between natural ecosystem conservation, tourism, social and cultural needs, and the strong economic interests of clam farmers. Thanks to the ecological, biogeochemical and socioeconomic investigations made in the past years, the Sacca di Goro counts on a satisfactory level of scientific knowledge of the ecosystem: in the EU DITTY project a Decision Support System (DSS) and an extensive geo database have been developed. The DSS tool runs through the use of both mathematical models and multicriteria analysis model. Within the experience of the DITTY project, it was experienced that multicriteria models, applied over a lower layer of mathematical models, can support decision makers in dealing with complex systems decisions and in setting priorities.

The **Southern North Sea case**, as delineated for AWARE purposes, includes the northern part of the French Atlantic coast and eastern Channel, as well the Belgian North Sea cost. The drainage basin covers the Seine, Somme, and Scheldt Rivers and an area of about 100,000 km2. Nutrient pollution of phosphates and nitrates from diffuse sources such as agriculture, are the main focus of this case study. The problem becomes visible to tourists and residents through algae and foam in the water and on the beaches; more subtle changes are also occurring in the changes potentially taking place in the food chain including fish production. Decreasing the pollution in the coastal waters of the case study – in order to achieve Good Ecological Status by 2015 – is a requirement under the EU Water Framework Directive. This case study is transboundary and trans-national. Thus, different authorities across national borders share responsibility for coastal water ecosystem health. The 'hydrological districts' set up under the Water Framework Directive are managed by regional water agencies, but national governments are responsible for marine and coastal waters under the OSPAR Commission (Oslo and Paris Conventions for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic) and the EU Marine Strategy. Several parallel studies – such as the Liteau, Threshold, Timothy, and PIREN-Seine programmes – have allowed links to be developed between watershed data and events in the coastal area, but data after 2003 for modelling is lacking. Additionally, the science-policy interface, although following a good track record in the region given the collaboration within watersheds, lacks the connection across different watersheds. Scientists from the UMR Sisyphe at the University Pierre & Marie Curie in France, and the Laboratory Ecologie des Systemes Aquatiques at the Universite Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium, used models such as MIRO and SENREQUE-RIVERSTRAHLER to describe various ecological processes in the three case study rivers. Based on consultations with the local AWARE citizens participating from France and Belgium, as well as other project partners and citizens from the two other case studies, the models were also used to test different 'scenarios' for measures to reduce nutrients affecting coastal water quality. It is important to note here that the models used in this case study allow for taking into account diffuse and targeted sources of nutrients – the modelling results in fact show that nitrogen pollution is the main challenge in the watershed,

The **Gulf of Riga** is the shallow sub-basin of the Baltic Sea that is shared by Estonia and Latvia. The gulf is exposed to changes from the rest of the Baltic Sea, and the watershed affecting the gulf stretches across five EU and non-EU countries. However, the focus of the case study in the context of AWARE has been on the socio-ecological realities of the two countries mentioned. The Gulf of Riga is suffering from eutrophication due to excessive nutrients, which is common to the whole Baltic Sea. Due to the complex socio-political landscape of the watersheds affecting the Gulf of Riga, a complete assessment and regular monitoring of all contributing river basins is sometimes missing, especially monitoring data on transboundary pollution loads. This also creates difficulties for a continuous science-policy interface, given that transboundary aspects make it hard to establish common grounds for assessments. In terms of involving the public – both citizens and stakeholders – the Public Information Act includes participatory procedures in the decisionmaking processes. However, it became clear throughout the AWARE evaluation process that top-down approaches used so far can be improved significantly to involve citizens in public discussions, in addition to NGOs and stakeholders. At the European level, the EU Water Framework, Marine Strategy and the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directives provide the framework under which the Gulf of Riga is required to reach 'good water quality' by 2020. According to the *Economic Analysis of the Baltic Sea Action Plan with Focus on Eutrophication* measures to achieve this goal – bringing sewage treatment systems up to EU standards throughout the Baltic Sea watershed – are estimated to cost 408-975 million Euro a year, 10% of which would have to be invested in the Gulf of Riga basin (HELCOM and NEFCO 2007). Ministries of Environment in Latvia and Estonia state they are already working to attain EU standards, but more recently updated cost information is needed especially for the wastewater loads from Belarus and Russia. As far as implementation time it seems clear this process will go beyond 2020. However, one of the most controversial issues in the case study, which was discussed in all participatory activities of AWARE and described using models, is the potential conflict between good water quality and probable reduction in fisheries output. This is viewed as a major socio-economic and ecological challenge in the Gulf of Riga. An additional socio-economic challenge lies with the fact that the costs necessary to invest in sewage treatment improvement should be borne by countries with no access to, and direct benefits from, the Gulf of Riga. Scientists from the Uppsala University and Bioforsk have studied the conditions in the gulf, using the CoastMab model. This can be applied for the gulf, as it focuses on different sewage treatment scenarios, and other activities undertaken to decrease eutrophication. Additionally, CoastMab has been used to predict fish yield in the gulf. Although an additional model – the Nest model hosted by the Baltic Nest Institute – has been used for example in the Baltic Sea Action Plan, the AWARE process has focused on the results of the CoastMab model, and

**Sacca di Goro** is the most geographically delimited case study within the AWARE project as it concerns mainly the Sacca di Goro Lagoon, Ferrara (Italy). The Sacca di Goro is located within the Po delta, which can be considered as the final ecosystem encountered by the Po river waters. This means that, virtually, even the whole Po river watershed could be considered within the geographical scope. The boundaries defined by the AWARE approach, though, include the lagoon, the inland activities bound to agriculture, and breeding and the Po river channels management systems. At present, the Sacca di Goro is one of the top European sites for clam rearing. About one third of the lagoon surface (8 km2) is exploited for clam farming with an annual production that reached a maximum of approximately 15,000 ton/year in recent years. The corresponding economic revenue has been oscillating between 50 and 100 millions of Euros each year. The main socioeconomic issues, therefore, regard the development of a sustainable clam farming activity, i.e. find a balance between natural ecosystem conservation, tourism, social and cultural needs, and the strong economic interests of clam farmers. Thanks to the ecological, biogeochemical and socioeconomic investigations made in the past years, the Sacca di Goro counts on a satisfactory level of scientific knowledge of the ecosystem: in the EU DITTY project a Decision Support System (DSS) and an extensive geo database have been developed. The DSS tool runs through the use of both mathematical models and multicriteria analysis model. Within the experience of the DITTY project, it was experienced that multicriteria models, applied over a lower layer of mathematical models, can support decision makers in dealing with complex

*The Science-Policy Interface focus of the AWARE case studies* 

stemming from diffuse agricultural sources.

worked within that model to discuss citizen-led scenario modifications.

systems decisions and in setting priorities.

The role of the AWARE citizens' panel was akin to that of a "citizens jury". *Citizens Juries*  bring together a panel of randomly selected and demographically representative citizens for a period of a few days to discuss specific policy issues. They tend to have on average 25 members. The deliberations are conducted by a neutral facilitator and often involve experts on the given issue(s) to deepen the debate. What citizen juries aim to achieve is finding a "common ground solution" on the topic of discussion that is presented to the public (Jefferson Center, 2004). This also means that citizen juries aim to represent a great variety of views through different participants, diverse backgrounds and divided opinions. The term "jury" taken from the court case discourse is here intentionally selected. In a way analogous to a court jury, a citizen jury is usually called to weigh the pros and cons of a particular policy proposal in order to decide on its merits but also for identifying its failings. The information thus gained is subsequently used by policy-makers to revise the policy towards greater balance. This, in turn, can lead to greater acceptance.

A methodological challenge is the selection and recruitment of participants in a citizens jury. Obviously representativeness is a difficult and often unattainable goal for any small-group activity involving on average 25 citizens (30 in the AWARE case). However, a careful selection procedure can result in the representation of a good spectrum of opinions and relevant socio-demographic characteristics. Important in this respect is that the announcement for any citizen participation reaches a large number of citizens and that a significant higher number than the set target is mobilized to apply for participation in the consultation process. In some citizen juries the dissemination target is set as high as 1,000 persons. Such high numbers are easily achievable when the organizers have access to census or register address databases. Equally high dissemination targets can however also be achieved with less intrusive means through the distribution of information in local newspapers, at the city council, through religious or social institutions or the internet. A dissemination strategy targeting some 1,000 citizens and resulting in some 100 to 200 contacts can be considered a success. The final selection follows on the basis of short individual interviews (face-to-face or by telephone) to tap on basic socio-demographic and attitudinal characteristics.

Also in AWARE, the recruitment process of citizens was mostly dominated by the challenge of building a representative sample of the population concerned, and to find people with sufficient English proficiency as well as interest to the topic. The language condition had to be met to ensure that citizens could communicate, in some cases on the regional level already, at least on the European level. Besides this, the selection of citizens was based on their motivations and ideas about coastal water quality. The recruitment of citizens occurred differently among the three case studies. In Sacca di Goro and in the North Sea cases the response rate to the widely lead recruitment campaign was low. In the Gulf of Riga the response to the recruitment campaign was comparatively more positive, potentially due to the activities of the project partner that took on this task, a local NGO – Baltic Environmental Foundation - knowledgeable about the most appropriate dissemination sites that would reach the targeted public (AWARE 2011c).

As it concerns the living interaction throughout the AWARE process among all the participants, relevant knowledge has been provided and brokered in different formats and measures: expert knowledge was provided mainly by scientists, tacit and local knowledge mainly by stakeholders and local policy makers. Citizens also provided local knowledge, as

Sustainability Science and Citizens Participation:

moderators was relatively high (AWARE, 2011c).

conference (AWARE, 2011f).

"civility" in debates.

Building a Science-Citizens-Policy Interface to Address Grand Societal Challenges in Europe 131

and prepare for the deliberations with the policy-makers and other participants at the

In all the case studies, the moderators of the participatory project were carefully selected among the project consortium's experts, bearing the advantage that instead of being recruited solely for the matter of one event, they were involved in the process from the beginning on. Additionally, training was provided by consortium's scientists and invited experts, and prepared with intense exchange of knowledge of the AWARE purpose and context preceding the meetings. The sessions were carefully documented and transcriptions were made available. The evaluation of the project2 indicates that the satisfaction with the

Indeed, the role of the facilitator, experts and other supporting personnel cannot be underestimated, which makes the preparation and performance of citizen participation events rather costly. A key to the success of citizen participation events is the choice of the facilitator. He or she should not represent any of the organizations with a stake in the consultation process and should also not be a scientific expert. He or she is expected instead to have expertise in the moderation and psychology of discussion. The role of the moderator is not only to implement the agenda (thus also keeping to the latter's timing) but also, primarily, to make sure that all opinions are heard and that all participants get their fair share of the discussion. This is an especially sensitive issue to manage, considering that people vary quite significantly with regard to their verbosity but also their capability to articulate their views. Giving every participant his or her fair share of the discussion should however also not result in a situation where participants are "forced" to speak when they do not wish to. A careful balance must, in other words, be established and doing this is the role of the moderator. Moderators are also those in charge to set the rules of interaction such as who takes the floor when, how long one speaks, how does one intervene in the discussion etc. A methodology often used is to break the whole workshop event into single sessions dealing with a coherent sequence of topics, and to divide each session in three steps: 1) presentation of the topic (usually by one or more experts) with the formulation of key questions for the citizens; 2) the citizens discuss their views divided in small sub-groups of 5-6 people, and draw a list of answers, conclusions or suggestions; 3) a (citizen nominated) rapporteur present the feedback of each sub-group in a plenary session. Such procedural elements are especially important for the success of citizen participation as they ensure

As it concerns the role of the experts in citizen participation events, they are expected to intervene at specific times to provide expert knowledge not available to the citizens and to answer questions. They should be chosen according to the criteria of impartiality and the ability to communicate difficult or complex subjects. Finally, supporting personnel are necessary for assisting the moderator and or experts – thus for taking minutes, collecting or distributing documentation, moving boards, adjusting equipment and the like. Support

2 An evaluation workpackage was built into the project structure, in order to draw lessons from the

personnel are not expected to actively participate in discussions.

pilot case study performance and outcomes.

well as personal experiences of the state of the coastal water resources. The process was also complemented by two rounds of on-line surveys, targeting different stakeholders at local level and a wider scientific and stakeholder community at the European level, and interviews to keynote decision makers, again at local and European levels.

The following table illustrates for each step of the AWARE process the activity undertaken (workshop, conference, on-line survey, interview), the key questions on focus, and the role of the different actors involved: scientists, citizens, stakeholders and decision makers (water managers and/or elected politicians).


Table 1. The AWARE knowledge brokerage and connectivity process.

As it concerns the scientific information delivered in the process, in the Sacca di Goro case, the Elinor Ostrom's general framework for analyzing sustainability of socio-ecological systems (Ostrom, 2009) was used in the knowledge exchange process. In addition, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) multi-criteria method (AWARE, 2011d) has been used in this case study to evaluate different management options, measuring: (1) the mutual distance of the groups of stakeholders from a common vision of the Goro socio-ecological system, and (2) the priority of actions to be implemented for improving the social, environmental and economic situation of the area.

In the Southern North Sea case integrated river basin-coastal water models have been used to test alternative scenarios with different measures to reduce nutrients from diffuse sources (agriculture) affecting coastal water quality, and the scenario assumptions and results have been discussed with the citizens and the stakeholders convened in a local conference held in Dunkerque, on 7 January 2011 (AWARE, 2011e).

In the Gulf of Riga case the local workshop, held along the gulf coast, was followed by the local conference after only one day. This was due to the more difficult logistics of arranging meetings with a citizens' panel from both Latvia and Estonia. However, the time in between proved sufficient for the scientists to adapt models and scenarios with the input from the citizens, and for these latter to finalize the Citizen Declaration started during the workshop

well as personal experiences of the state of the coastal water resources. The process was also complemented by two rounds of on-line surveys, targeting different stakeholders at local level and a wider scientific and stakeholder community at the European level, and

The following table illustrates for each step of the AWARE process the activity undertaken (workshop, conference, on-line survey, interview), the key questions on focus, and the role of the different actors involved: scientists, citizens, stakeholders and decision makers (water

> Provide state-of-the-art scientific knowledge.

Apply assessment and scenario tools to analyze the present and possible future states of the local system. Apply decision support tools to evaluate alternative options.

Provide state-of-the-art policy knowledge.

SCIENTISTS/EXPERTS CITIZENS STAKEHOLDERS DECISION MAKERS

Share views and visions (at the workshop and in the on-line survey).

Share views (at the conference and in the on-line survey).

Provide and adapt their perception of local problems and policy needs (at the conference and in the policy interviews). Commitment to enhance connectivity between local actors for a sustainable management of local coastal waters.

Share views (at the conference and in the policy interviews). Commitment to enhance connectivity between EU and local actors for a sustainable management of coastal waters across Europe.

Share views and values.

Share views and visions. Elaborate their recommendations at the local level.

Share views and experiences done at local level. Elaborate their recommendations at the EU level.

interviews to keynote decision makers, again at local and European levels.

STEP EVENTS/ACTIVITIES KEY QUESTIONS ROLE OF THE ACTORS

 What's the problem? How it works?

 What's the situation here? What is being done? What can be done?

 How research and policy connections work now? (across EU and across sectors) How to better connect scientists, people and decision makers? What can we do to achieve a sustainable management of European coastal waters? 

Table 1. The AWARE knowledge brokerage and connectivity process.

environmental and economic situation of the area.

Dunkerque, on 7 January 2011 (AWARE, 2011e).

As it concerns the scientific information delivered in the process, in the Sacca di Goro case, the Elinor Ostrom's general framework for analyzing sustainability of socio-ecological systems (Ostrom, 2009) was used in the knowledge exchange process. In addition, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) multi-criteria method (AWARE, 2011d) has been used in this case study to evaluate different management options, measuring: (1) the mutual distance of the groups of stakeholders from a common vision of the Goro socio-ecological system, and (2) the priority of actions to be implemented for improving the social,

In the Southern North Sea case integrated river basin-coastal water models have been used to test alternative scenarios with different measures to reduce nutrients from diffuse sources (agriculture) affecting coastal water quality, and the scenario assumptions and results have been discussed with the citizens and the stakeholders convened in a local conference held in

In the Gulf of Riga case the local workshop, held along the gulf coast, was followed by the local conference after only one day. This was due to the more difficult logistics of arranging meetings with a citizens' panel from both Latvia and Estonia. However, the time in between proved sufficient for the scientists to adapt models and scenarios with the input from the citizens, and for these latter to finalize the Citizen Declaration started during the workshop

managers and/or elected politicians).

 1st European Workshop

workshops Local conferences On-line survey Policy makers' interviews

 2 nd European Workshop European conference On-line survey Policy makers' interviews

Understanding complexity

Linking EU research, policy making and public participation for a sustainable management of coastal waters

Local assessment Local

and prepare for the deliberations with the policy-makers and other participants at the conference (AWARE, 2011f).

In all the case studies, the moderators of the participatory project were carefully selected among the project consortium's experts, bearing the advantage that instead of being recruited solely for the matter of one event, they were involved in the process from the beginning on. Additionally, training was provided by consortium's scientists and invited experts, and prepared with intense exchange of knowledge of the AWARE purpose and context preceding the meetings. The sessions were carefully documented and transcriptions were made available. The evaluation of the project2 indicates that the satisfaction with the moderators was relatively high (AWARE, 2011c).

Indeed, the role of the facilitator, experts and other supporting personnel cannot be underestimated, which makes the preparation and performance of citizen participation events rather costly. A key to the success of citizen participation events is the choice of the facilitator. He or she should not represent any of the organizations with a stake in the consultation process and should also not be a scientific expert. He or she is expected instead to have expertise in the moderation and psychology of discussion. The role of the moderator is not only to implement the agenda (thus also keeping to the latter's timing) but also, primarily, to make sure that all opinions are heard and that all participants get their fair share of the discussion. This is an especially sensitive issue to manage, considering that people vary quite significantly with regard to their verbosity but also their capability to articulate their views. Giving every participant his or her fair share of the discussion should however also not result in a situation where participants are "forced" to speak when they do not wish to. A careful balance must, in other words, be established and doing this is the role of the moderator. Moderators are also those in charge to set the rules of interaction such as who takes the floor when, how long one speaks, how does one intervene in the discussion etc. A methodology often used is to break the whole workshop event into single sessions dealing with a coherent sequence of topics, and to divide each session in three steps: 1) presentation of the topic (usually by one or more experts) with the formulation of key questions for the citizens; 2) the citizens discuss their views divided in small sub-groups of 5-6 people, and draw a list of answers, conclusions or suggestions; 3) a (citizen nominated) rapporteur present the feedback of each sub-group in a plenary session. Such procedural elements are especially important for the success of citizen participation as they ensure "civility" in debates.

As it concerns the role of the experts in citizen participation events, they are expected to intervene at specific times to provide expert knowledge not available to the citizens and to answer questions. They should be chosen according to the criteria of impartiality and the ability to communicate difficult or complex subjects. Finally, supporting personnel are necessary for assisting the moderator and or experts – thus for taking minutes, collecting or distributing documentation, moving boards, adjusting equipment and the like. Support personnel are not expected to actively participate in discussions.

<sup>2</sup> An evaluation workpackage was built into the project structure, in order to draw lessons from the pilot case study performance and outcomes.

Sustainability Science and Citizens Participation:

**2.3.1 Highlights from the citizens** 

river basin management plans.

**2.3.2 Highlights from the scientists** 

increased awareness gained in a common, neutral forum.

compartmentalization.

Building a Science-Citizens-Policy Interface to Address Grand Societal Challenges in Europe 133

The AWARE citizens' panels are willing to convey their message at all levels – European and local - which includes sharing the experience they gained on this project, and taking home with them ideas that will foster change. In particular, school campaigns are thought to be the most effective action to educate children and their families in environmental-friendly behaviors and participatory approaches (this opinion is also shared by scientists). However, it was also claimed that action is needed right now, and that we cannot only rely on the ideas of better-educated future generations. In this respect, local events and festivals can be used to inform citizens. To involve actively citizens is indeed very difficult, but the

"People want to know" and "people are able to think". Citizens believe they have the rights to express their concerns and they want to be considered on the same level as scientists and other stakeholders. Citizens are willing to be informed and take part on the kind of assessments used in AWARE, but appropriate information channels must be used. An example may be creating a new role for *scientific ambassadors* acting as public communicators. In fact, this role has existed for instance in the French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Environments (ONEMA), but only targeted towards policy-makers; the EU Water Framework Directive focus on public participation however should ideally create further opportunities for such a role, especially in the new rounds of consultations for the

A balance between socio-economic and environmental aspects and priorities is needed when building scenarios for improving environmental challenges. Indeed, decisions taken in consultation with all affected actors around the table are more likely to be sustained and supported in the long term. Establishing links between stakeholders and bringing them

The scientific award system - the one that values the achievements of a scientific career should recognize and promote the participation of scientists in this kind of participatory initiatives: spreading the word, tailoring scientific results to various target audiences, participating in public and decision-making processes and stakeholder dialogues, etc.

Including the opinions of stakeholders and citizens enrich scientific models, scenarios and help develop more robust results. Systematic approaches should be developed to promote this type of involvement. In addition, the citizens' input helps the scientists to focus on a really comprehensive view of the problem at stake, avoiding the typical scientific

An important outcome of the project is that throughout the process the citizens became more like scientists and scientists more like citizens: AWARE started building a common language between communities, based on common understanding of complex issues and on

A larger inclusion of socio-economic factors would be advisable for future experiments, not only due to the requirements of European legislation but also because is directly called in by

together to discuss in the same room at the same level is a key requirement.

institutions need citizens perhaps even more than citizens need the institutions.

On a whole, the evaluation of the AWARE process has been positive (AWARE, 2011c), but with two distinct weaknesses. The first one concerns the interaction between the citizens and the scientific experts. All experts were asked to make their presentations as understandable for a lay audience as possible and with a few exceptions this part of the interaction was successful. However, problems arose from the lack of complete information that the experts were able to convey during the short period of time allocated to them. In some cases even small bits of incomplete information surfaced later in the process in the form of erroneous assumptions on the part of certain citizen groups. This weakness is difficult to overcome because it is impossible to predict which path the citizen deliberations will take and certainly not desirable to determine this path beforehand. One possible solution might be to involve all experts in the proceedings throughout the entire process as something like a "knowledge repertoire".

The second weakness at the local level was the difficulty to involve policy makers. Indeed, even in those cases where it was possible to organise some form of participation of policy makers, the nature of the interaction was not very productive – it remained on the level of political statements rather than producing a truly exchange of ideas among the policy makers and the citizens. Unfortunately this appears to be at a systemic problem rather than an organisational weakness of the AWARE project. Unlike science, the realm of policy making is not concerned with understanding natural or social phenomena but rather with representing and/or weighting different interests. The active involvement of policy makers in the process immediately raises issues on the legitimacy of any eventual decision taken on the bases of the deliberations formulated by a random group of few citizens.

However, an alternative way to enable a more productive citizens-policy makers interaction is to trigger a continuous informal process of confrontation on key sustainability sciencepolicy issues between the policy makers and the citizens involved in AWARE-like awareness raising process, to help bridging the gap between the citizens "street-level" information, perspective and understanding of the topic, and that of the elected representatives. In this process it may even happen that one or more citizens of the group are motivated to enter the policy arena: this was the case of two citizens of the Goro's group that participated to the local elections, and were actually elected as Mayor and councillor of the Municipality in May 2011.

#### **2.3 The AWARE citizens conference outcomes**

A concrete outcome of the AWARE process is the *Citizens Declaration*. However, besides the citizens' assessment, the AWARE case studies showed that all participants gained new and significant understanding and insights on coastal water management through participating in a set of local workshops and conferences. They exchanged views on a broad range of issues relating to the short and long term health of coastal waters. The groups in all three case studies also addressed specific problems related to agricultural policy, water quality and pollution, and socio-economic trade-offs. The following are some lessons learned and the most significant comments from different participants: citizens' panels, scientists, stakeholders and policy-makers attending the local and the European conference, interviewed or answering to the on-line surveys.

#### **2.3.1 Highlights from the citizens**

132 Social Sciences and Cultural Studies – Issues of Language, Public Opinion, Education and Welfare

On a whole, the evaluation of the AWARE process has been positive (AWARE, 2011c), but with two distinct weaknesses. The first one concerns the interaction between the citizens and the scientific experts. All experts were asked to make their presentations as understandable for a lay audience as possible and with a few exceptions this part of the interaction was successful. However, problems arose from the lack of complete information that the experts were able to convey during the short period of time allocated to them. In some cases even small bits of incomplete information surfaced later in the process in the form of erroneous assumptions on the part of certain citizen groups. This weakness is difficult to overcome because it is impossible to predict which path the citizen deliberations will take and certainly not desirable to determine this path beforehand. One possible solution might be to involve all experts in the proceedings throughout the entire process as

The second weakness at the local level was the difficulty to involve policy makers. Indeed, even in those cases where it was possible to organise some form of participation of policy makers, the nature of the interaction was not very productive – it remained on the level of political statements rather than producing a truly exchange of ideas among the policy makers and the citizens. Unfortunately this appears to be at a systemic problem rather than an organisational weakness of the AWARE project. Unlike science, the realm of policy making is not concerned with understanding natural or social phenomena but rather with representing and/or weighting different interests. The active involvement of policy makers in the process immediately raises issues on the legitimacy of any eventual decision taken on

However, an alternative way to enable a more productive citizens-policy makers interaction is to trigger a continuous informal process of confrontation on key sustainability sciencepolicy issues between the policy makers and the citizens involved in AWARE-like awareness raising process, to help bridging the gap between the citizens "street-level" information, perspective and understanding of the topic, and that of the elected representatives. In this process it may even happen that one or more citizens of the group are motivated to enter the policy arena: this was the case of two citizens of the Goro's group that participated to the local elections, and were actually elected as Mayor and councillor of

A concrete outcome of the AWARE process is the *Citizens Declaration*. However, besides the citizens' assessment, the AWARE case studies showed that all participants gained new and significant understanding and insights on coastal water management through participating in a set of local workshops and conferences. They exchanged views on a broad range of issues relating to the short and long term health of coastal waters. The groups in all three case studies also addressed specific problems related to agricultural policy, water quality and pollution, and socio-economic trade-offs. The following are some lessons learned and the most significant comments from different participants: citizens' panels, scientists, stakeholders and policy-makers attending the local and the European conference,

the bases of the deliberations formulated by a random group of few citizens.

something like a "knowledge repertoire".

the Municipality in May 2011.

**2.3 The AWARE citizens conference outcomes** 

interviewed or answering to the on-line surveys.

The AWARE citizens' panels are willing to convey their message at all levels – European and local - which includes sharing the experience they gained on this project, and taking home with them ideas that will foster change. In particular, school campaigns are thought to be the most effective action to educate children and their families in environmental-friendly behaviors and participatory approaches (this opinion is also shared by scientists). However, it was also claimed that action is needed right now, and that we cannot only rely on the ideas of better-educated future generations. In this respect, local events and festivals can be used to inform citizens. To involve actively citizens is indeed very difficult, but the institutions need citizens perhaps even more than citizens need the institutions.

"People want to know" and "people are able to think". Citizens believe they have the rights to express their concerns and they want to be considered on the same level as scientists and other stakeholders. Citizens are willing to be informed and take part on the kind of assessments used in AWARE, but appropriate information channels must be used. An example may be creating a new role for *scientific ambassadors* acting as public communicators. In fact, this role has existed for instance in the French National Agency for Water and Aquatic Environments (ONEMA), but only targeted towards policy-makers; the EU Water Framework Directive focus on public participation however should ideally create further opportunities for such a role, especially in the new rounds of consultations for the river basin management plans.

A balance between socio-economic and environmental aspects and priorities is needed when building scenarios for improving environmental challenges. Indeed, decisions taken in consultation with all affected actors around the table are more likely to be sustained and supported in the long term. Establishing links between stakeholders and bringing them together to discuss in the same room at the same level is a key requirement.

#### **2.3.2 Highlights from the scientists**

The scientific award system - the one that values the achievements of a scientific career should recognize and promote the participation of scientists in this kind of participatory initiatives: spreading the word, tailoring scientific results to various target audiences, participating in public and decision-making processes and stakeholder dialogues, etc.

Including the opinions of stakeholders and citizens enrich scientific models, scenarios and help develop more robust results. Systematic approaches should be developed to promote this type of involvement. In addition, the citizens' input helps the scientists to focus on a really comprehensive view of the problem at stake, avoiding the typical scientific compartmentalization.

An important outcome of the project is that throughout the process the citizens became more like scientists and scientists more like citizens: AWARE started building a common language between communities, based on common understanding of complex issues and on increased awareness gained in a common, neutral forum.

A larger inclusion of socio-economic factors would be advisable for future experiments, not only due to the requirements of European legislation but also because is directly called in by

Sustainability Science and Citizens Participation:

public hearings.

**3. Theoretical foundations** 

governance framework.

Building a Science-Citizens-Policy Interface to Address Grand Societal Challenges in Europe 135

management at the local level. The same process at the national or European level is not considered so simple. Enlarging the scale leads to greater expenses to let citizens from different countries of Europe to meet and work together, language barriers and perhaps a more difficult focus on tangible problems – as compared with the local scale - but it also increases the understanding of the whole complex issue, and the perceived relevance by the participants and, thus, their commitment. Besides promoting AWARE-similar science-policy interface projects, citizens should also be encouraged to build stronger and more active communities and to exercise pressure on their parliamentarians and politicians to take action. Citizens should also use existing consultation channels in public institutions, such as

The nature and scope of democratic politics in modern societies has been a subject of academic and political debate since the early days. A key issue has always been the extent to which it is possible to sustain active and dynamic democratic practices in a large and complex polity. Already in the Federalist Papers, the founding fathers of American democracy Madison, Hamilton and Jay writing under the pseudonym "Publius" debated the importance of federalism for a large, multi-lingual, heterogeneous and divided country like the United States at the time. One of their main arguments was that within a large polity federalism was a facilitator – and not an inhibitor – of democracy because only federalism with its many levels of government could ensure that there were enough checks and balances on central government but also on powerful interest lobbies. A few centuries later, the European Union finds itself facing similar, even if more complex, challenges as it seeks to advance beyond economic integration towards political integration within a multi-level

Whether the European Union will evolve into a full federal state remains an open question (as this could imply a significant loss of national sovereignty it is evidently not favoured by either citizens or political elites). But even if the future of the European Union lies rather in inter-governmentalism, which delineates a regulatory model of loose coordination (Majone 1996) rather than a political model of institutional convergence, one thing is certain: that in a multi-level government polity it is no longer possible to rely alone on representative democratic institutions (such as the parliament) and procedures (such as voting) to obtain citizen input into decision-making. A complex democratic polity requires a multi-faceted *public sphere* (Habermas 1991, 1998) and this, in turn, calls for more stakeholder involvement in decision-making (hence governance rather than government – see EC 2002) as well as

Unlike representative democracy which is conceptually based on the model of delegation, deliberative democracy calls for "active"citizenship (Barber 1984, Held 1996). Active citizens are those who mobilize within communities or social movements and who thus endeavour to impact on policy-making. "Activated" citizens are those who take part in citizen deliberative forums organized by national or, principally, local governments for tapping on citizen views on specific policy proposals. Policy forums, insofar as they are organized by public authorities, are a form of top-down citizens participation, different from bottom-up

more latitude for deliberative processes (Schmitter 2000, Giorgi et al. 2006).

active citizenship (as in community or social movements).

the citizens. There is a need to move into broader frameworks that give more relevance to such socio-economic aspects, like the Integrated Coastal Zone Management.

The AWARE Citizens' Declaration and the final conference where it was presented raised the question of environmental democracy. Science launched the AWARE project (amongst other Science-Policy Interface initiatives), but now the initiative and decision should be social. This claims for more action research focusing on sustainability challenges and aimed to deliver environmental and social change.

#### **2.3.3 Highlights from the water manager and policy makers**

From the AWARE experience, it seems that policy-makers and water managers form the most difficult group to engage in public participation processes, unless such activities are part of their agendas. The policy and water managers community would find a summary of guidelines or best practices based on the AWARE experiment a very useful resource for future initiatives and activities. In addition, an overview of the current status of implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive Article 14 on public participation would be very useful, covering all Member States. While the scope of the public consultations run under the Water framework Directive vary a lot between countries, they usually failed to involve individual lay citizens, which is where the AWARE project has demonstrated a new and effective approach. Additionally, a policy agenda that focuses on each step of education - from early stage to long life learning, in formal and informal settings - should promote a larger up-taking of scientific results by the public.

It is clear that only by reaching the majority of the society - not just a small elite of concerned people as the AWARE citizens panel - can societal challenges effectively be addressed. For this purpose, social networks and mass media are becoming essential tools. Despite the number of persons who agree with this statement, many have already tried – unsuccessfully – to apply social networks in similar initiatives. Very good skills on modern communication, dedicated time and resources, and a very specific target group seem indispensable for such tools to be truly successful. The AWARE citizens' panel, for instance, rejects that kind of approach and communication experts confirm that face-to-face methods are required when dealing with challenging and complex issues.

The Science-Citizens-Policy projects must deal with - and fight against - an excessive fragmentation of institutional roles and competences, both within the water sector and between the water sector and other related sectors such as agriculture and tourism. Coordination of main decision-makers, better and more efficient use of funds, and more efficient circulation of best practices are perhaps more important than further funding. The main problem with multi-level governance is however that the lower levels (e.g. municipalities) that can work close to the citizens and organize local participation processes usually do not have the financial resources for implementing what the citizens propose. Often the funds are available only at higher levels of government and not easily/immediately accessible for local decision makers, with the result that the expectations of the citizens are eventually not met.

Strengthening the connectivity between researchers, policy-makers, key stakeholders, and civil society can certainly improve the water quality and ease the water management in Europe. This kind of participatory approaches can be more easily implemented in water management at the local level. The same process at the national or European level is not considered so simple. Enlarging the scale leads to greater expenses to let citizens from different countries of Europe to meet and work together, language barriers and perhaps a more difficult focus on tangible problems – as compared with the local scale - but it also increases the understanding of the whole complex issue, and the perceived relevance by the participants and, thus, their commitment. Besides promoting AWARE-similar science-policy interface projects, citizens should also be encouraged to build stronger and more active communities and to exercise pressure on their parliamentarians and politicians to take action. Citizens should also use existing consultation channels in public institutions, such as public hearings.
