Challenge
Pollinating insects are declining dramatically, with serious consequences for biodiversity, food production and ecosystems across Europe. Addressing this issue requires not only technical and scientific action, but also wider public engagement around difficult policy choices linked to agriculture, land use, climate change and biodiversity protection.
The Young Citizens Assembly on Pollinators, organised by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre, was created to bring young people into this policy debate. It brought together 100 randomly selected young Europeans aged 18–29 to deliberate on pollinator decline and biodiversity governance over several months.
The Assembly was also designed as a pilot to test whether a more permanent youth deliberative mechanism could be useful for EU policymaking. This made it important to understand not only what young people recommended, but also how such a process can be designed in a way that is inclusive, meaningful and useful for policymaking.
The evaluation needed to understand what worked well, what made participation difficult, and what conditions would be needed for future youth assemblies to be meaningful for both young people and policymakers. The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre wanted to understand how youth deliberation can contribute to EU policymaking, particularly on complex and long-term policy issues such as biodiversity and pollinator decline.
The evaluation therefore focused on how the Assembly worked in practice, including whether it helped young people build knowledge, confidence and skills; which formats best supported participation; and what lessons could inform future EU youth deliberative processes.
Approach
Verian evaluated how the Young Citizens Assembly on Pollinators worked in practice and what lessons it offered for future EU youth deliberative processes.
We looked at the Assembly from two angles:
- how well the process supported deliberation, learning and participation;
- how participants experienced the journey from the first session to the final recommendations.
The evaluation examined the Assembly’s design, facilitation, knowledge inputs, working groups, plenary sessions, task forces and follow-up process.
A key focus was understanding which formats helped young people participate most meaningfully. The findings showed that small-group and participant-led formats worked best. These spaces helped participants ask questions, exchange views, build confidence and feel ownership of the process.
The evaluation also looked at what made participation more difficult. These included too much information at once, limited time for reflection, language barriers and unclear links between the Assembly’s recommendations and future policy follow-up.
One important lesson was that future assemblies should design the participant journey, not only the deliberation process. Participants’ expectations changed over time: they moved from learning and orientation, to stronger confidence, scrutiny and expectations for influence. Future processes therefore need to plan for this journey from the start.
Impact
The evaluation added value by turning the YCAP experience into practical lessons for future youth deliberative mechanisms.
It showed not only that youth assemblies can build knowledge, confidence and engagement, but also what conditions are needed for this to happen in a meaningful way. The analysis identified which formats supported the strongest participation, where participants faced barriers, and how mandate, recognition and follow-up shaped trust in the process.
A key contribution was showing that participants did not experience the Assembly as separate sessions, but as an evolving journey. They moved from orientation and learning, to growing confidence and scrutiny, and finally to stronger expectations for ownership, recognition and follow-up.
As Assembly members became more informed and invested, they increasingly wanted to understand how their recommendations would influence policy. When this was not always clear, growing agency sometimes led to frustration or scepticism.
The evaluation therefore helped clarify an important design lesson: future assemblies should plan the full participant journey, not only the deliberation agenda. This means thinking from the start about how participants move from learning and participation to ownership, influence and follow-up.
By making these dynamics visible, the evaluation provides practical guidance for designing future EU deliberative processes that are more credible, inclusive and useful for both young people and policymakers.
.svg)
Back
