Post 2015 Development Agenda: Guidelines for Country ... - nrg4SD

DESCRIPTION STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESS SUGGESTED USECITIZEN PANELSA group is selected torep-resent the generalpublic in a series ofdiscussions and toassist in decisionmakingalongside thegovernment andother parties, allgroups are seen asequals whetherelected to selected byrandom sampleIf panelists are replaced at each meeting,one can increase the representative natureof the groupAs with citizen juries, the hosting organization must ensurethe purpose of the meeting is clearly stated and address theneeds and interests of all presentCITIZEN JURY 37A group of 10 to 20ran-domly selectedcitizens gathered “soas to repre-sent amicrocosm of theircommunity” who siton a panel to hearproposals andpresentations whothereafter discuss andreply with a unifiedresponse to the topicGood for issues and questions that require a‘yes’ or ‘no’ answerRequiring that policy makers be active in thecitizens’ jury process, to ask and be askedquestions and to put forward their points ofview would make the method more powerful.It would enable citizens to dialogue directlywith decision makers, involving them moredirectly in the policy arenaNot as inclusive, as decisions were made priorto the consultationThis is specifically designed for public representation, not forinterest groups. This is a highly democratic process closelylinked to the Common Law system from which it spawnedand may be a foreign concept in countries of morecentralized political systemsThere must be a clear goal and topic for discussion, andpresenters should remain focused on this so as to avoidfragmentation and detraction from reaching a final ‘verdict’.The agenda should be created by representatives fromeach groupCITIZEN PLANNING CELLSLocal or nationalgovern-ments enlistcitizens to act as ateam of consultants tohelp withdecision-makingprocess. Governingbodies help guide thecells towardactionable goals.Ideal for equalizing voices when largeinequities exist at the na-tional,subnational or local levelHelps educate citizens on the deliberativepolitical process. Citizens are empoweredby the democratic process 38Much quicker response received whencitizens express dissatisfac-tion with thegovernmentGiven that governing bodies sponsor theevent, bias in infor-mation dissemination canbe an issueThe unfamiliarity of citizens with planningprocesses may lead to unrealistic expectationsof the achieving all goals laid out in the reportIdeal for all civil society groupsIdeal for a larger size group (25+ individuals)Participants are presented with information from thesponsoring body (usually the gov-ernment). Information isrelated to the cur-rent ’problem’ and contextGroup then splits into five working groups to discussstrategies and prioritiesGroup generates a report and host group agrees to takereport into consideration inthe decision-making or planning processIf previous methods have failed to generate a positive result orresolution, this tactic could aid in providing a nuanced approachto alternatives considered by governing bodies and groups 3937J. Abelson, P.G. Forest, J. Eyles, P. Smith, E. Martin and F.P. Gauvin. “Deliberations about Deliberation: Issues inthe Design and Evaluation of Public Consultation Processes”. McMaster University Centre for Health Economicsand Policy Analysis Research Working Paper 01-04, June 2001.38Kaitlin Sellereit. “Planning Cells”. Participedia.net. 2 June 2010.39Sellereit, Kaitlin. “Planning Cells”. Participedia.net. 2 June 2010.54Post-2015 Development Agenda Process: Guideline for Consultations