Citizen Jury for Climate Adaptation in Tromsø Municipality - Design Proposal

CITIZEN JURY FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION IN TROMSØ MUNICIPALITY Design Proposal OCTOBER 17, 2025 UiT – The Arctic University of Norway Authors: Torill Nyseth, Arild Buanes, Mina Benjegård Citizen Jury Handbook UiT 1 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101037084 Forword This report has been prepared by the IMPETUS project for Tromsø Municipality, which has been a collaborative partner in the project. The report is intended to serve as inspiration should the municipality consider establishing a citizen jury in connection with climate work. It may also provide some ideas on how to organize public participation more generally, supporting the municipality's strong traditions of engagement. Tromsø Municipality has long been a frontrunner in experimenting with new ways of fostering participation, such as the Urban Space Festival KANO, the future project “Hvor går Tromsø” ("Where is Tromsø Heading"), “Byutviklingens År” ("The City Development Year"), “Spillet om Tromsø” ("The Game of Tromsø") and youth engagement initiatives led by NODA, to name a few of the most significant efforts. These initiatives have put Tromsø on the map when it comes to experimental forms of participation. Citizen juries have not yet been tested in Tromsø. This report is primarily an overview of literature summarizing experiences with citizen juries as they have been implemented in various countries, with a focus on Norwegian examples. Since IMPETUS has had climate adaptation as a main focus, the examples largely revolve around citizen juries addressing climate-related issues. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that citizen juries can be applied to a wide range of issues where input from citizens is needed. In a separate appendix, we present a potential framework for a citizen jury related to climate adaptation in Tromsø. Citizen Jury Handbook UiT 2 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101037084 1 Citizen Jury – What Is It? Genuine public participation is often challenging in practice. At the same time, a number of new and creative methods have been developed to make participation more genuine. Citizen juries are a participatory method that goes deeper and is perceived by participants as more genuine and meaningful than traditional forms of participation. In the English literature on citizen juries, various terms are used, such mini-publics, or citizen forums. In Danish, the term "borgerting" is commonly used. In Norwegian, the terms "innbyggerhøringer" or "innbygger/borgerpaneler" are used. Citizen juries have gained increasing popularity worldwide, especially in light of the climate crisis and the necessity of transitioning toward low-carbon energy systems (Chilvers et al., 2018; Willis et al., 2021). Ross et al. (2021) argue that there is a democratic deficit in climate policy, which is primarily governed at the central level. There is a need for greater grassroots engagement. In climate policy, there are examples of the use of citizen juries in England, France, Scotland, Spain, and Denmark. The benefits of citizen juries are numerous. They can build stronger relationships between members of different social groups, help identify new solutions to difficult problems, and foster hope in addressing climate challenges. Citizen juries can be used to clarify issues, discuss the pros and cons of various solutions, and thereby be part of the decision-making process (Escobar and Elstub, 2017). For citizens, participating in such juries can also provide a stronger sense of place identity and pride, for example, by being recognized as a "frontrunner" for climate action. Citizen juries can also contribute to increased trust between experts and laypeople (Ross et al., 2021). 2. What is Citizen Jury Appropriate For? The literature on citizen juries views learning as an important objective. How can collective processes like these teach better ways to handle "wicked problems" (Huitema et al., 2020)— problems characterized by a high degree of uncertainty and complexity, where greater flexibility is needed? Irvin and Stansbury (2004) emphasize how important it is for the issue/topic to be clearly defined. Citizen juries are best suited for situations involving some form of crisis that can drive a collective process to address it and increase the legitimacy of unpopular but necessary decisions. The primary function of a citizen jury is to give citizens a stronger voice. Citizen juries should therefore be understood as democratic initiatives. They are not meant to replace representative democracy but can serve as an important supplement in matters where citizen input is particularly important. Increased political engagement, a greater understanding of the complexity of an issue, and strengthened dialogue are often the objectives. There are many ways to organize juries. An important question is how many participants they should have. They should not be too large but large enough to ensure representativeness. When Citizen Jury Handbook UiT 3 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101037084 used correctly, such juries can activate individuals who are underrepresented in electoral channels, as well as more people than those directly selected to participate in the jury itself, through the networks of the individual participants. The term "jury," which we associate with a courtroom jury, is used deliberately because many such citizen jury panels employ a form of "witnesses" who are called to the jury to provide their perspectives on the topic at hand. These witnesses are most often experts who provide the jury with relevant information and new knowledge. Occasionally, witnesses also represent stakeholders. Citizen juries differ from ordinary juries in that they, of course, do not pass judgment on anyone to determine guilt or innocence. Citizen juries are described by Smith and Wales (2000, p. 55) as follows: "Over a number of days participants are exposed to information about an issue and hear a wide range of views from witnesses, who are selected on the basis of their expertise or on the grounds that they represent affected interests." Citizen juries generally have an advisory function. This means providing qualified advice to the relevant decision-making authority responsible for the issue the jury is invited to discuss. In some cases, the jury may be asked to take a position on a controversial matter. Professional facilitators (process leaders) guide the process. 2.1.1 Building of Consensus Consensus-building and deliberative processes are associated with citizen juries. These processes facilitate the possibility of changing preferences along the way, meaning that some participants, as a result of learning from expert witnesses and discussions within the jury, may actually change their assessments and viewpoints. Developing a shared understanding of the complexity of the issue is crucial. Emphasizing relational aspects is therefore important. There are no international standards for how such juries should be organized, but there are some guides available (Huitema, 2003, Jefferson Center; http://www.jefferson-center.org). 2.1 Norwegian Experiences Several municipalities in Norway have experience with citizen juries. Trondheim Municipality has used such juries in several projects as a follow-up to the city council's decision to increase citizen involvement and co-creation. Two juries have been conducted as part of this strategy. The first, called Borgerkraft (Citizen Power) (2020), focused on what sustainability meant locally in a neighborhood and how the municipality could support good initiatives. The second, called Trondheimspanelet (The Trondheim Panel) (2021–2022), was part of the work on the municipal plan's societal section. Here, the emphasis was on discussing various dilemmas related to quality of life and sustainability. Both initiatives involved close collaboration with expertise from NTNU and consultants experienced in the methodology, such as the company SoCentral (Arnesen et al., 2022). Citizen Jury Handbook UiT 4 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101037084 Larvik Municipality has similar experiences, using a jury in connection with city center development. This was called Folkestemmen – et folkepanel i Larvik (The People's Voice – A Citizen Jury in Larvik) (2021). Stavanger Municipality conducted a "Young Citizen Jury," which consisted of youth from one of the city's neighborhoods. This initiative was led by Smartby Stavanger and the organization Grønn By (Green City), with a focus on neighborhood development. Bergen has had a so-called Byborgerpanel (Town Citizens' Panel) regarding neighborhood organization and local democracy (Arnesen et al., 2021). Røros Municipality established a permanent citizen jury in 2023, consisting of 18 people who serve for a two-year period. The jury has an advisory role and is convened twice a year on issues where politicians need input from residents (Røros Municipality, 2024). Oslo Municipality explicitly used a citizen jury in connection with climate adaptation in a neighborhood (GrefsenKjelsås) in 2021. The project, called New Water Ways, focused on stormwater management. NIVA and SoCentral were key partners in the project. Looking beyond Norway, Denmark has used such juries in many contexts. One example is Københavnertinget (The Copenhagen Assembly) (2022), which aimed to improve the inclusion of minorities and socially disadvantaged groups. In Sweden, a national Medborgerråd (Citizens' Council) was conducted in the spring of 2024. Here, a group of randomly selected citizens met to propose ways to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement (Medborgarråd om klimatet, n.d.). 3 Design How can such juries be set up and organized in the best possible way? There are several dimensions that need to be clarified (Smith and Wales, 2000). 3.1 Finding the Right Question This is the critical point. What questions/issues should the citizen jury discuss? The issue that juries are invited to work on should not be too broad but also not too narrow. This is a challenge: not too open and not too closed. This can also be part of what the jury is tasked with clarifying— what is the most important problem complex to address? In other words, a more open issue. This provides guidance on who might be suitable participants for the jury. If the issues to be discussed are too broad, the jury will often only arrive at very general recommendations. However, if the issues are too narrowly defined, jury participants may feel they lack the opportunity to explore the broader context that is important for understanding and solving the problem. The advantage of a citizen jury that meets multiple times over a certain period is that it can delve deeper into difficult issues where there is no clear or valid answer. Thorough and more detailed discussions, with time for learning and reflection between jury meetings, provide different and better answers than what more spontaneous public statements allow for. Often, an issue needs to be defined and narrowed down further. An issue is often composed of several larger or smaller Citizen Jury Handbook UiT 5 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101037084 problems. Which part of a problem complex should be the starting point, and where does it fit in a process toward a solution or decision? This can range from identifying or defining a problem to evaluating alternative solutions. If it is a "wicked problem"—what we might call an unmanageable problem or "societal knot"— that is to be explored (and climate is defined as such), it is not easy to identify it as a distinct "decision item" in a process. There is significant variation in the types of questions such juries discuss, but they are often related to a political issue that is contentious and where politicians seek advice from citizens. Juries have also been used in larger planning processes, such as in Trondheim. It is also important that the type of issue or problem does not require participants to have complex technical knowledge (Irvin and Stansbury, 2004). In the climate field, the background for establishing citizen juries is often that we are facing some form of crisis that must be addressed. A recent example is from Leeds, England. Here, a jury was set up called The Leeds Climate Change Citizens' Jury in response to the political leadership in Leeds adopting a "Declaration of Climate Emergency," where one of the goals was to become climate-neutral by 2030. The jury was tasked with the following question: "What should Leeds do about the emergency of climate change?" One of the purposes was to increase climate engagement among citizens, thereby encouraging changes in attitudes and involving citizens in the choice of climate measures rather than imposing such decisions on them. Regarding climate change, Wells et al. (2021, p. 5) point out that juries "can help to identify more nuanced and in-depth public opinions reached in a fair and informed way than is achieved by polling or surveys, testing and discussing a range of approaches to climate action and creating space for public engagement, within policymaking by producing a set of prioritized recommendations." Juries represent a structured way not only to provide citizens with more knowledge about climate change but also to create space for citizens' own experiences and knowledge, and, most importantly, to support the collective development of recommendations and proposals for measures and solutions. Juries can help increase the pressure for action, making it harder for politicians to dismiss compared to campaigns led by environmental organizations. However, there are also examples of the opposite. From Belgium, there are examples of juries that have worked on local climate adaptation measures (Niessen, 2019). Politicians raised many objections to the jury's input. In this case, the input was seen as arbitrary, and the jury was perceived as unable to understand the complexity of the issue at hand. This illustrates some of the complexity, particularly with climate-related issues, which require a carefully thought-out design to succeed. 3.2 How Many and How Long? One of the most important dimensions to clarify is how many participants the jury should have and how much time they will have available. There is no definitive answer to this. The size of Citizen Jury Handbook UiT 6 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101037084 juries varies, but the number of participants is recommended to be somewhere between 12 and 50. Fewer than 12 is considered unfavorable because the group becomes so small that it struggles to reflect the broader public and to accommodate contrasting viewpoints. With more than 25 participants, other challenges arise, such as the ability to interact face-to-face and to reach consensus or a shared understanding. The duration of a citizen jury also varies, from 2 hours to several days, sometimes repeated multiple times. Often, it can involve 2-day sessions, 6 hours per day, possibly over a weekend. The shorter the duration, the less time there is for reflection. In Trondheim, for example, there were 5 sessions over a period of 3 months. 3.3 Recruitment and Selection The selection of participants for the jury is, of course, very important. A fundamental principle is that all citizens should have an equal opportunity to participate so that the jury reflects the population as much as possible. How can the right participants be found? Should it be representative, and in relation to what? The population as a whole, or based on a group for whom the topic is particularly relevant? Methods for selection are typically one of the following: • Random selection through a lottery, e.g., from the population register • Self-selection Random selection is considered the most democratic because, in principle, everyone has an equal opportunity to be chosen. The selection is often conducted by drawing lots based on the population register. In systematic selection, the aim is to create a sample that represents the population as much as possible. In practice, selection often occurs through a two-step process: first, a random sample of the population is drawn, invitations are sent out, and among those who accept, the desired number of participants is selected through a lottery (e.g., Trondheimspanelet). Thus, even with this method, there is a certain degree of self-selection because those who say yes are typically the ones most interested in participating. Smith and Wales (2000) emphasize inclusivity rather than representativeness because statistical representativeness is not achievable when juries are small. Another way to think about representativeness is more flexible: • Representativeness of viewpoints • Representation of those most affected Representativeness of viewpoints does not mean that there must be representation from all sociodemographic variables (gender, age, occupation, income, etc.), but rather that the different viewpoints or perspectives on the issue at hand are represented. This is not the same as involving stakeholders or interest groups. Representativeness of viewpoints means that participants share similar types of experiences, histories, or social knowledge due to their position in society. Citizen Jury Handbook UiT 7 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101037084 Representation of those most affected refers specifically to representation from the group identified as being most impacted by the issue at hand. A challenge, of course, is that in many cases it can be difficult to define who is most affected. The advantage of both these methods, however, is that they provide greater flexibility, especially when we are talking about juries with relatively few participants (Ohren, 2024). 3.4 Background Material Because citizen juries often have to address fairly complex problems, the jury must have access to reliable and relevant information. In some cases, this can be challenging—perhaps especially in matters related to climate, where knowledge is often contested. Documentation can become quite extensive, so it is important to strike the right balance. The material should also be presented by a team of experts capable of communicating it effectively, while ensuring that the factual basis and other forms of documentation are available to the jury at all times. 3.5 Facilitation Conducting effective citizen juries requires competence on the part of the organizers, whether the juries are conducted digitally or in person. Citizen juries are facilitated group discussions. How can productive discussions be achieved? Facilitation involves both the practical organization of the jury's work and creating conditions for high-quality and inclusive discussions. The learning and knowledge phase can be handled by an expert group, while the phase requiring reflection and discussion focuses on the jury's internal quality. This phase requires knowledge of deliberative group processes that establish "ground rules" for discussions to ensure equality among participants. Particularly in the climate field, where climate skepticism may be present, the legitimacy of the process is crucial. This cannot be left solely to an expert group. The final phase, which involves summarizing recommendations, primarily requires strong meeting facilitation skills. While some of this competence may exist within the municipal organization, external facilitation expertise is often needed for the reflection phase. 3.6 Authority and Legitimacy Citizen juries usually have only an advisory function, but there are examples where they have been granted real decision-making power or, at the very least, can operate in a policy-formulating capacity. Citizen juries may have more influence on agenda-setting than on the actual formulation of measures (Roberts and Escobar, 2015). When it comes to climate issues, these are ongoing processes that cannot be resolved once and for all. In this way, juries can play an agenda-setting role by establishing an ambition level that should be pursued. Juries can also provide politicians with a stronger mandate to push ambitions in the right direction. Citizen Jury Handbook UiT 8 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101037084 It is important that the jury has acceptance from the political system—in practice, that the initiative to establish a citizen jury comes from politicians, preferably with the broadest possible support. 3.7 What Does It Cost? It is common to compensate participants for the time they spend on this, as the time is usually taken from their personal free time. Participants are typically given compensation similar to what politicians receive for participating in committees. In Bergen, participants received 2000 NOK per meeting. In the citizen jury in Leeds, participants were given a gift card worth 25 GBP for each meeting they attended. Additionally, travel expenses and caregiving costs, if applicable, were covered. Other costs may include payment for professional facilitators, secretarial functions, speakers with special expertise, as well as catering during meetings and potentially meeting venues. A more affordable alternative could be focus groups. One way to reduce costs, such as travel and accommodation, is to arrange the meetings digitally. 3.8 How Is the Work of the Jury Organized? It is very important that the key questions the jury is tasked with discussing are framed appropriately, that the purpose is clear, and that the process is well-structured, including how the outcomes will be utilized. The working methods in a jury should be varied and consist of a combination of presentations, panel discussions, small group discussions, speed-dating style 1on-1 conversations, moments of silent reflection, voting, as well as written and map-based exercises. Good and relevant information that is concrete and specific must be available to all participants. The issues or dilemmas to be addressed must be clearly formulated. Future scenarios or similar methods can be used as a methodology. The formulation of measures or policy recommendations typically occurs in the final phase. 3.9 Who Initiates a Citizen jury? This can vary. Most often, it is a public entity. In Trondheim, it was the planning department, as the jury was intended to contribute to the work on the societal section of the municipal plan. It can also be the political leadership, in cases where the jury is meant to provide advice on an issue that will go to a political decision. For example, the Oxford Citizens Assembly on Climate Change was initiated after the city council adopted a climate emergency declaration in 2019, with the goal of becoming climate-neutral by 2030. New Water Ways was part of a research project, where the project (NIVA) and Oslo Municipality jointly organized and initiated the jury. Citizen Jury Handbook UiT 15 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101037084 receive an invitation to participate. Among those who accept the invitation, 12 will be selected to sit on the jury based on specific criteria. A recommended number is 12–18 participants. 6. Meeting format The format of the meetings must also be decided. Should they be open meetings, more closed consultation meetings, or structured as a deliberative process? 7. Communication format How should the jury's conclusions be communicated? Should digital tools, online platforms, or other digital resources be used? In what way should these be utilized? The next phase involves disseminating the process. How should what is discussed in the jury be communicated? Which channels will be used? 8. Implementation of the process Finally, the implementation of the process. What kind of timeline is appropriate? What resources are available? Technical capacity? Existing platforms? Who are the relevant stakeholders or potential partners? The jury meets a number of times, e.g., 3–4, to give participants the opportunity to process the information shared within the jury. Repeated meetings also allow participants to overcome any existing barriers and develop a shared understanding. The jury meetings should have different focus areas with the goal of addressing the issue. For example, the following structure could be used: 1. Insight into challenges and possible solutions, presentations by experts 2. Reflection and discussion based on the information previously presented 3. Evaluation of alternatives 4. Formulation of recommendations Citizen Jury Handbook UiT 16 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101037084 Phase 1: Presentation of Facts and Visualization of Challenges Expert Witnesses/Facilitation Use of VR technology to visualize sea level rise and possible measures Photos and other illustrations of flood events and stormwater Maps of flood pathways and flood zones Digital Twin of Tromsø Municipality to visualize future climate changes in relation to existing infrastructure Climate researchers Environmental organizations Public agencies responsible for climaterelated issues: County Governor, climate planners in TFK (Troms County) and TK (Tromsø Municipality) Consultants Phase 2: Panel Discussion Expert Witnesses/Facilitation Who owns the problem? Discuss possible approaches Facilitator moderates the discussions Phase 3: Evaluation of Alternatives Expert Witnesses/Facilitation Possible solutions Obstacles and barriers Possible solutions are reviewed with the expert group Phase 4: Recommendations Expert Witnesses/Facilitation The jury presents its agreed-upon and wellreasoned recommendations in a final report submitted to the politicians Political decisions Feedback to the jury participants Secretariat Acknowledgements IMPETUS has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101037084. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License “BY-NC-SA”.