Skip to content





The second phase of the project recognizes the impact of the first phase, reinforcing the thematic subgroups of deliberation previously created. In each thematic subgroup, a needs assessment has been carried out: evaluating the main obstacles, challenges, methodological and technical issues.

The rest of the phase has focus on developing answers and prototyped solutions to the problems previously identified. To this end, 30 professionals have been invited to participate in a co-creation laboratory to work collectively on solving both their problems and those of other subgroups.




Identify, confirm and validate the needs, challenges and barriers faced by deliberative democracy initiatives in the South in order to co-create solutions to solve and overcome them.

We implemented a model of collective creation that has brought together the experience of 35 organizations from the global south participating in the project and who have put them in constant dialogue with creators, artists, programmers, designers, experts in behavioral sciences, among others.

The laboratory methodology motivated participants to generate creative circles of innovative ideas where the expertise of each of them is valued and encourages, in turn, diverse participation, the collective generation of knowledge and the creation of practical tools



presential 100%

Participants have worked for 5 hours a day, in six different groups, to design and create a prototype solution.


Participation mechanisms: are those that condition the right to organize and dialogue, deliberate and influence the management of a public interest. They emphatically address the inclusion of actors, contexts, interests and objectives. 

How small landowners, historically marginalized, can be part of the dialogue on the development of agriculture and the guarantee of their rights.

Farming democracy, harvesting sustainability.
Citizen assembly capable of incorporating small farmers in the decision-making process on agricultural development and claiming the rights they hold.

Cultural barriers: these correspond strictly to the social, environmental, political, security and/or economic environment that may have hindered or determined the development of an initiative.

How to re-establish relationships of trust between communities and elected representatives/decision-makers in the face of socio-environmental conflicts, in order to reconcile environmental remediation solutions and achieve the satisfaction of the yearning for justice?

A methodology for empowerment, trust restoration and deliberation in socio-environmental conflicts with affected communities.

Barriers to participation mechanisms: these are those that condition the right to organize and dialogue, deliberate and influence the management of a public interest. They emphatically address the inclusion of actors, contexts, interests and objectives.

There are no inclusive and neutral platforms created for deliberation that allow the inclusion of people with limited access to public forums. Due to barriers of distance, cost, language or information, inflexible scheduling (restricted time from engagement) and segmented decision making (some cultures limit certain groups to speak at the public meeting).”

Multimedia platform (digital platform + community radios) to ensure effective participation in the public finance management process. 

Knowledge management barriers: correspond to the management, systematization, analysis and processing of information or collective knowledge of the deliberation process and the communication of results.

Government Ministries, Departments and Agencies are unable to proactively disclose procurement information that is accessible to all citizens. This has further discouraged civic participation in the procurement process and has affected accountability in the value for money of project delivery. This has resulted in insufficient citizen engagement, participation and feedback in public budget execution.  

Data People
Citizen deliberation and training process for the active use of open data in Nigeria.

Barriers in decision-making: among the deliberative processes, this is recognized as the most difficult moment, since the decision-making exercise requires prioritizing and/or discarding arguments and exposed needs, so these barriers address issues of coherence, inclusiveness, controversy closure, among others. 

Lack of incentives or counterweights for public institutions to understand the democratic and practical value of deliberative democracy, including compliance and follow-up of deliberations or decisions made by citizens derived from democratic innovation and deliberative democracy mechanisms.

Deliberation for the crisis. Advocacy and incentive strategy to strengthen the understanding, compliance and commitment of public institutions with deliberative democracy mechanisms.

Knowledge management barriers: correspond to the management, systematization, analysis and processing of information or collective knowledge of the deliberation process and the communication of results.

There are no collaborative spaces between organizations and/or practitioners of deliberative democracy in the Global South that allow for effective knowledge management of their projects.

Matchmaking platform that allows users to match knowledge and/or support needs with the resources and expertise of other users. 




Create a digital and interactive repository of deliberative experiences, methodologies, practices, learning, strategies, actors, etc.

Extituto is developing a platform where Global South practitioners and organizations, making part of the project, can update the material and the knowledge related to deliberative democracy, previously generated from the Global South and the results produced in previous activities.

Melisa Ross

PhD candidate at the Berlin Graduate School for Social Sciences (BGSS) of Humboldt University in Berlin, Germany, and a research fellow of the Healthier Democracies project led by Public Agenda in New York, USA. “My research focuses on the Latin- American left turn, postneoliberalism, citizen participation and democratic innovations”.

Azucena Morán

Research associate at the Institute for Sustainability Research – Helmholtz Center Potsdam. Her transdisciplinary work explores deliberative and participatory responses to planetary challenges. She serves on the Editorial Board of Participedia and on the Steering Committee on Democratic Innovations of the European Consortium for Policy Research (ECPR).

Yanina Welp

Associate researcher at the Albert Hirschman Center on Democracy, Graduate Institute, Geneva (Switzerland) and editorial coordinator of Agenda Pública. Between 2016 and 2019 she was co-director of the Latin American Zurich Center, at the University of Zurich. She has a PhD in Political and Social Sciences from the Pompeu Fabra University (Barcelona, Spain) and a degree in Political Science and Social Communication Sciences, both from the University of Buenos Aires (Argentina). She obtained the Habilitation with the Venia Legendi in Latin American Studies from the University of St.Gallen (Switzerland). She is co-founder of the Red de Politólogas. She specializes in the study of political participation, a topic on which she has published books, articles, and book chapters.

Claudia Chwalisz

Claudia is the lead author of the first OECD report on deliberative democracy: Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave (2020; co-authored with Ieva Cesnulaityte), and she led the development of the OECD Good Practice Principles for Deliberative Processes. She oversaw the development of the OECD Evaluation Guidelines for Representative Deliberative Processes (2021) is the author of a new OECD paper on Eight Ways to Institutionalise Deliberative Democracy (2021). She co-ordinated the OECD Innovative Citizen Participation Network of leading international practitioners, academics, public servants, artists, and designers, and she edited the OECD’s online digest Participo.

Yago Bermejo

Yago has been working on democratic participation projects for more than 10 years. He has experience in facilitation, process design and strategies for the use of democratic digital tools. From 2016 to 2019, he has been responsible for ParticipaLab, a democratic innovation laboratory, at Medialab Prado, in coordination with the Participation Area of the Madrid City Council, in which he has developed numerous projects related to Decide Madrid as well as the design of the Observatory of the City and the G1000 of Madrid, pioneering experiences in the use of lottery and deliberation in Spain.

Susan Lee

Susan is a student and democracy practitioner from Seoul, South Korea. In 2020, she co-founded the World Citizens’ Assembly, a prototype for a global citizen’s assembly based on iterative pilot testing, with Yago Bermejo Abati. In 2021, Deliberativa began co-incubating the Global Assembly, the first sortition-selected global citizens’ assembly in the lead-up to COP26. Deliberativa coordinated the delivery of pilot tests on multilingual virtual deliberation to inform the final Assembly design. As part of the Implementation Circle, Susan supported the recruitment and management of 100+ global partners to implement a decentralized sortition and train local hosts of Assembly participants. In the fall of 2021, she co-designed and implemented the deliberative process and output consolidation methodology. Susan has been the main spokesperson for the GA since the project launched; you can see some of Susan’s media work here and here. Susan is interested in imagining participative models of global governance, decolonizing deliberative democracy, and placing youth at the front of the deliberative wave.

Maria Paulina Ibarra

Executive Director of Fundación Multitudes, a non-profit organization based in Chile. She has global experience in transparency, citizen participation and accountability, having worked with organizations such as Open Government Partnership and the World Bank. She holds a BA in Communication from Marymount University, and an MA in Communication from Georgetown University.

Andre Noel Roth

He is a Political Scientist (1990), Master in Political Science (1994) and Doctor in Economic and Social Sciences, mention in Political Science (1999) from the Université de Genève-Switzerland. He has been professor of public policy analysis in Switzerland and in several universities in Colombia and Latin America. Since 2006, he is a Research Professor (currently tenured) attached to the Department of Political Science of the Faculty of Law, Political and Social Sciences (FDCPyS) of the National University of Colombia, Bogotá. He has held the positions of Coordinator of the Doctorate in Political Studies and International Relations, Director of the journal Ciencia Política, Director of the Instituto de Investigación Socio-jurídica UNIJUS and Vice-Dean of Research and Extension of the FDCPyS. He is also Director of the Research Group “Analysis of Public Policies and Public Management”. Public Policy and Public Management Analysis” (APPGP) (category B Colciencias 2021), Coordinator of the Innovation in Governance Innovation in Governance Laboratory (GobLab) of the FDCPyS, Co-coordinator of the group Comparative Public Policy group of ALACIP and Co-editor of the journal Mundos Plurales (FLACSO-Ecuador). Ecuador). He has published several books and dozens of chapters and articles on public policy and administration. administration.