Engaging Citizens with Mission Ocean and Waters

Utilising a theoretical grounding to engage citizens with Mission Ocean & Waters will help in your application for funding and maximise the success of your project going forward. The Mission aims to tackle uncontrollable and wicked problems at societal level across Europe, and with it comes a range of challenges and risks associated with engaging citizens.

This toolbox, and specifically the detail provided in this part of toolbox, is based on a theoretical approach called ‘post-normal science’ and has been developed by the PREP4BLUE project team, drawing on their expertise as well as insights from earlier participatory projects, literature and handbooks. Below, we briefly introduce what post-normal science means, along with some key terms. This will help explain why citizen participation is central to the Mission Ocean & Waters agenda and how you can apply it in practice.

In the traditional view, knowledge is synonymous with research or science. Since science is often perceived as objective and autonomous from politics, scientific experts are useful for legitimizing advice and action – for instance in relation to achieving the objectives of Mission Ocean & Waters²⁴. This is based on the belief that a strict and formal separation between science and society is both possible and necessary²⁵. In this view, science must be ‘pure’ and autonomous to function as an objective source of advice on controversial issues. As such, engaging citizens can be problematic, as this would allow different agendas to influence ‘pure science’. Accordingly, it is necessary to look for other theoretical foundations as the Mission is aiming to including citizens to solve challenges. The theoretical foundation of this toolbox is loosely based on the theory of post-normal science.

The insight of post-normal science goes beyond the traditional idea that science is both certain and value-free²⁶. Post-normal science represent a form of science for policy that address issues where facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.²⁷ This philosophy of so-called post-normal science states that for conflict-ridden and complex societal challenges where scientific knowledge is uncertain, democratic approaches are needed to assess what knowledge is relevant, and who manages the validity and relevance of this knowledge (Table 6). This resonates with the challenges that the Mission aims to tackle, including climate change and environmental pollution: what to do, and how to cope with multiple opinions and uncertainties while being under pressure by the public, market forces and political goals?

Post-normal science acknowledges that uncertainty is more than a technical number or a methodological issue. There are of course several ways to distinguish between different types of uncertainty²⁸, including uncertainty that can be controlled through quantification and uncertainty that cannot be controlled because these specific problems are sufficiently complex and involve so many competing interests that ‘more’ knowledge will not necessarily reduce the uncertainty in the problem. Uncertainty that cannot be controlled makes the premises for risk analysis unclear and can thus be an additional source of conflict. This may be relevant when the uncertainty cannot be sufficiently reduced with new knowledge. Note that even quantifiable uncertainty can be a subject of conflict. For example, decisions based on quantifiable risk can be fraught with conflict because interest groups can have different preferences for which risk one is willing to take.

The way uncertainty is related to two types of problems is central to this toolbox, and is defined as follows:

1. Controllable problem: reducible uncertainty where agreement and consensus on norms are settled. The uncertainty at hand can be described through quantitative measures. Here, normal scientific risk analysis can be sufficient, for example, forecasting for waves and levels of toxins in mussels. See Appendix 3 for a more detailed example.
2. Uncontrollable problem: irreducible uncertainty with no consensus and little agreement on norms and standards. Context where simple probabilistic risk analysis or standard statistical methods are not able to fill all knowledge gaps, and we lack knowledge about what we do not know, for example, climate change impacts such as sea level rise and associated consequences including coastal erosion. See Appendix 3 for a more detailed example.

The Mission aims to solve a large number of complex problems that have different types of uncertainties related to them. For the challenges that needs to be tackled to achieve the Mission, we argue that it is useful to distinguish between controllable problems (A) and uncontrollable problems (B). A concept related to uncontrollable problems that is used in the Mission, is the aforementioned ‘wicked problems’ in which high stakes, risks and/or high uncertainty are involved in a policy-relevant issue, a characteristic of the ‘post-normal condition’—that is, a circumstance in which scientific facts and social values are difficult to untangle.²⁹

From the very beginning, the EU Missions have been designed with the underlying principle that their success will depend on the participation of citizens, appropriate to the issue at hand^30,31. This goes hand in hand with the philosophy of post-normal science. There are several reasons why a more participatory approach including citizens can be understood as necessary. One reason is a normative one, often referred to as the ‘deliberative turn’.³² The deliberative turn is defined as follows in Dryzek, 2002: “The deliberative turn represents a renewed concern with the authenticity of democracy: the degree to which democratic control is substantive rather than symbolic, and engaged by competent citizens.”³³ The deliberative turn argues that we should democratize knowledge and expertise, not only regarding who consumes it, but also who produces it. Hence, participatory approaches are needed to assess what knowledge is relevant and who manages the validity and relevance of that knowledge. In this view, all (not just scientists) can have relevant knowledge and experience that can be useful for the Mission.

The term ‘citizen’ can be quite vague and is used differently across different fields (legal, political), projects, and policy areas. In general, when used in this toolbox, ‘citizen’ emphasises the non-specialist, non-elite nature of the individuals in question³⁴. This creates some distinction from the sometimes-overlapping term stakeholder (also often used throughout Mission Ocean & Waters literature). Stakeholders, by contrast, may be either specialist, elite, have access to the Mission activities due to their employment, or some other form of contextual privilege. They also tend to be represented as organisations or interest groups, while citizens tend to be engaged as individuals. That said, the two concepts often overlap and, of course, individual stakeholders can also be citizens, and citizens may be stakeholders. And the tools provided in this toolbox can be applied to either or both.

A number of loosely linked research approaches to what participation entails have developed in recent decades. Here, we understand citizen participation to occur when individuals from diverse backgrounds and expertise engage with knowledge-production and/or decision making in a collective endeavour. This can be a range of activities, including knowledge-production initiatives, political events in which decisions are to be made, or the conception, development and implementation of a societal Mission. Citizen engagement and citizen participation is used interchangeably in this guide. It may also be referred to as community engagement, citizen involvement, public engagement or civic engagement.

Note that citizen participation does not necessarily require formal citizenship, but refers to the general public or residents, in a specific area. Citizen participation is crucial not only to grant legitimacy, credibility and salience³⁵ to a Mission, but also to realize democratic values and social justice³⁶. Moreover, citizen participation allows for a wider and more diversified knowledge base, which is important to cope with the uncertainty and ambiguity inherent to addressing the Mission, and to ensuring the salience of the solutions proposed.

Participation may entail a range of involvements, for example, from differing levels of communication (receiving information or voicing opinions) to directly impacting how a research process unfolds or what the outcomes are. While the avenues for participation vary in function and intensity, it is a widespread agreement that participation should grant a greater degree of power to citizens. The principles of participation are typically illustrated as a ladder³⁷ which describe a spectrum of engagement depths and their corresponding levels of citizen power (see Figure 6 below). In this toolbox, we visualise the ladder of participation as a matrix to better reflect the relationship between what people can expect with different forms of engagement. In the matrix, increasing levels of engagement means greater citizen power. To the far right of the matrix – or at the top of the ‘ladder’ – citizens have the power to define the problem, develop the solution and the process to get there. Different types of ladders have served as a basis for informing processes of citizen participation and as inspiration for further developing guides for participation.

The matrix can be used to assess the level of engagement for different participatory processes. While there may be good reasons to include citizens, it is important to underline that not all problems require the greatest levels of involvement – this depends on the type of problem at hand. Different types of problems demand different participatory strategies. This toolbox distinguishes between controllable problems—those with clear risk profiles and known solutions—and uncontrollable problems—those characterised by complexity, uncertainty, or ambiguity. In theory however, higher engagement levels and more decision-making power delegated to citizens should lead to greater perceptions of legitimacy and public trust in the decision-making process. Since high levels of engagement requires a substantial commitment by citizens, ensuring the relevance of the problem to be solved is key. Inviting citizens to participate in defining the problem, may thus enhance the success of your citizen engagement initiative.

There are both benefits and limitations to different participatory approaches³⁹. For instance, sharing of responsibility (e.g., to ensure that participation is more than lip service⁴⁰), classification of who relevant stakeholders or citizens (together referred to as ‘actors’, due to the parts they play) are, as well as addressing the vested interests and power differences implicated in a given process⁴¹. In reality, multiple challenges often arise with participatory approaches: who to include and how to include citizens in different processes; are they interested in participating at all? This is often referred to as ‘stakeholder’ or ‘engagement fatigue’ in participatory processes. Reasons for this type of fatigue varies, but is typically related to time constraints, language barriers, different priorities, poor personal reward or little capacity/power to influence decisions⁴².

Risks are an intrinsic part of human life and must also be considered when designing your project. In modern times, many risks that society faces are the unintended consequences of the development and application of new technologies such as global warming and pollution⁴³. Other issues are beyond our understanding and control, and uncertainty cannot necessarily be reduced. There are many ways to conceptualize risks. We suggest categorizing different risk phenomena as simple, complex, uncertain and ambiguous risks. These exist on a continuum and should be understood as such also for the Mission-related initiatives. Our knowledge about systems or technologies varies. Simple or linear risks can be described as those that are better understood and easier to model than others and can therefore be better risk managed (if the resources are available). For these issues, one can calculate risks on the basis of established scientific models and historical patterns of performance, for example, weather patterns, sea currents and so on. Other issues are more complex or even uncertain, for example, new technology or tightly coupled systems that increases complexity and non-linearity and hence risk. For instance, the effects of new fisheries gear technology on the ecosystem can cause effects that were impossible to predict. With ambiguity, we here refer to the plurality of legitimate viewpoints for evaluating decision outcomes and justifying judgements about their tolerability and acceptability.⁴⁴ Note that with new knowledge, methods and experience, a risk may change from ambiguous to any of the other categories. The Covid-19 pandemic is an example of an ambiguous risk which is (better) controlled with new knowledge, experience and methods. How to judge the different types of risk are culturally contingent – they are cultural products since they depend on perceptions about what is probably, unlikely, serious or absurd. Accordingly, there is no one correct answer or interpretation of risks, nor solutions⁴⁵.

In order to support the process of choosing what type of involvement is necessary for different Mission-related problems, we will use the two types of problems introduced in Section 3.1.1. above; A) controllable and B) uncontrollable problems, as a rough diagnostic tool. The more uncontrollable the problem that a project is tackling, the more ambiguous the scope of risk becomes, and the type of participation we require can be related to this continuum – in the type of knowledge we require, the relevant actors to provide it and ultimately the level of participation. We particularly recommend active, two-way participation when dealing with uncontrollable problems—especially because these situations often require involving different types of actors, depending on the nature of the problem.

To help with this, we propose a diagnostic tool to help visualise the ‘steps of participation’, from informing to empowering participants, which can be defined to reflect the type of information a problem or project requires; from which relevant actors. Figure 7 below helps to visualise the concept that controllable problems are related to simple risk and can be used to help assess when it is most appropriate to inform, consult or empower citizens. Uncontrollable problems span a continuum of complex, uncertain, and ambiguous risks. The goal of engaging citizens in the Mission is to empower them to take responsibility and action toward the overarching aim: restoring our ocean and waters. But The Mission itself is a complex and uncontrollable challenge, with a broad and sometimes ambiguous scope of risk. So, where do different parts of your project fit along this continuum, and what ‘step’ (or steps) of the citizen participation ladder should you be aiming for?

Note that citizen participation is always possible at all levels of risk⁴⁶. The controllable problem goes down a continuum to uncontrollable problems from the left to right; while the expected level or type of participation is illustrated going from the bottom up. If the expected participation is knowledge input as one-way information (inform) it suffices to include scientists in the participatory processes. Moving further to the right towards uncontrollable problems, the expectations for the type of participation changes and involves consultations with civil society, including feedback to the process to scientists/policy makers. This depends on the problem at hand, however, as practice experts such as fishers, farmers, etc., may have relevant knowledge input.

Two of the expected outcomes of Mission Ocean & Waters with respect to citizen participation includes the application and development of deliberative democracy mechanisms – that is, the inclusion of citizens in deliberative processes (Table 5). In this section we will briefly address common expectations of what can be achieved by participatory processes and the already mentioned deliberative turn⁴⁷ (see Section 3.1.2).

In general, deliberative democracy has faith in consensus and that “public reason-giving is the best way to uncover what is good and true”⁴⁸. The deliberative turn⁴⁹ has been criticized by many^50,51 and it is important to maintain realistic expectations of what can be achieved and what challenges can arise. One assumption of deliberative democracy is that broad participation in decision-making will bring about more legitimate and effective policy outcomes⁵². For example, ensuring citizen participation in Mission Ocean & Waters initiatives should lead to increased legitimacy. But legitimacy is difficult to measure since it is not directly observable; and even if something is perceived as legitimate, it can be both inefficient and inequitable. Another assumption is that broad participation will ensure consensus. But failing to acknowledge dissensus can lead to shallow or disappointing outcomes^53,54, especially in the post-normal context (see Table 6), and when the end-result creates winners and losers^55,56. Hence, we warn against holding consensus as the ‘holy grail’ of success. Still, one can aim for consensus as an elusive target but create a space in which there is high tolerance for respectful conflict. Such an approach involves making explicit the multiple values underlying the conflict, as well as generating an atmosphere of respectful disagreement. As such, arenas for participation should be organized in line with the ideals of deliberative democracy, even if they may be hard to put to work in real life. For instance, it is an ideal that that the deliberation process between citizens should take place in a space free from manipulation and the exercise of power⁵⁷. However, people will have different relations to each other and the authorities no matter where you are and who you place together – some will have formal power, and some will have informal power.

It is important to consider several aspects including:

1. Power – focus on who is in a position to influence in the given context. Power can take different forms: a) Utilitarian power is based on control over material resources or incentives (e.g., funding agencies, industries with economic leverage); b) Normative power stems from moral authority, cultural values or perceived legitimacy (e.g., environmental NGOs, Indigenous communities); c) Coercive power involves the ability to enforce rules or impose sanctions (e.g., regulatory bodies, law enforcement). It is equally important to identify actors who may lack power yet are deeply affected by the issue at hand.
2. Legitimacy, focusing on who has a legitimate right to influence. This can be based on tradition (fishers, for instance) or employment (aquaculture, for instance), how representative they are (formal vs informal).
3. Urgency/need for immediate attention
4. Economic status. Stakeholders can have an urgent need to influence problems that have an irreversible element (threaten life, reduce quality of life, threaten economic security, threaten biodiversity, or destroy cultural heritage). This aspect also includes vulnerable groups; and
5. Practicalities: in general, practicalities cannot be ignored since budget, time and practical consideration will limit the selection of stakeholders. This includes issues such as: what is realistic? Do we have easy access to stakeholders? Are stakeholders willing to participate? Are there any risks? 

Table 7 below provides some guiding reflection questions to help prepare your project. It is not meant to lead to a final answer, rather to instigate reflections and guide the process of defining your goals for citizen participation.

Mapping participants (Table 8 on the following page) is important in order to get an overview of who you aim to include, and who you actually manage to include. Given the Leave No One Behind principle, effort should be taken to ensure gender and equality issues are reflected upon. For instance, if you are alone with small children, it can be difficult to participate in meetings during the afternoon; and if you don’t have a car, you may not travel far, and there may be identity/religious/historical reasons for avoiding buildings such as churches. It is also important to consider the ethics of their inclusion, whether it is appropriate to ask for their time and whether your method of inclusion or dissemination may fuel local conflict, which could risk the success of the project or reputation of your problem.

A more detailed stakeholder mapping template, which considers power and legitimacy more thoroughly, is available in Appendix 1.

It is useful to note, that funders often require funded projects to provide a high level, summative evaluation of their approach and impact on wider society that specifically focus on aspects of their funding criteria. As we focus here on supporting the goals of Mission Ocean & Waters, Appendix 4 provides a useful tool for planning and mapping your subsequent impact at high level on The Mission target outcomes, objectives and overarching goal. This simplified way of mapping can be adapted for any project goal, at any level.

For more specific evaluation, we provide two additional tables below that can be adapted to evaluate your impact towards Mission Ocean & Waters:

• Table 11: Example of a table for evaluating outcomes in Mission Ocean & Waters initiatives (adapted from Warburton et al. 2025⁶⁷). The table below is filled out as an example of use.
• Table 12: Table for evaluating citizen engagement at different stages of Mission Ocean & Waters initiatives, with example applications. A detailed example of its use is provided at the end of this Section.

In Table 12 on the following page, the axis should be adapted according to your needs. Here, the horizontal axis is related to the stages, and for each of these you should reflect on the depth of engagement. This should be compared to the aims of engagement at the outset of your initiative. The vertical axis is related to Figure 7, the steps of participation.⁶⁸

Examples of how these can be adapted and used are provided in Sections 4.1 and 4.2.

Increasingly, funding calls related to the Mission ask for ocean literacy to be embedded within the project. As a result, Appendix 4 provides a simple planning template through which you can plan the goals and anticipated outcomes of your ocean literacy activities and prompts to help start thinking about the best methods of evaluation. Figure 8 gives an example of how this can be used to inspire planning your activities around the known dimensions of ocean literacy (presented as a method in Section 5.7, Figure 13) and suggestions of ways to start more detailed formative evaluation.